Brinkman v. Bueter

Rule of Law:

Indiana's medical malpractice statute of limitations is an occurrence statute, requiring claims to be filed within two years of the alleged negligent act, with a narrow exception only for situations where it is genuinely impossible for a plaintiff to discover the malpractice and resulting injury within that period due to the nature of the condition (e.g., long latency diseases like cancer).

Facts:

• In January 1995, Sandra Brinkman was pregnant and seen by Dr. James Dupler, who noted signs (positive protein in urine, increased blood pressure, weight gain) that could indicate preeclampsia and instructed her to return in three days.
• On January 22, 1995, Mrs. Brinkman was admitted to St. Vincent Hospital complaining of severe headaches, visual disturbances, epigastric pain, and vomiting; however, Dr. Dupler and Dr. Wesley Wong concluded she displayed "no preEclamptic signs or symptoms."
• After delivering a healthy baby on January 26, 1995, Mrs. Brinkman was discharged on January 27, 1995; over the next three days, her husband, Mark Brinkman, repeatedly called Women’s Health Partnership (WHP) reporting her worsening headaches, but WHP advised it was likely a sinus problem or virus.
• On January 30, 1995, Mrs. Brinkman suffered seizures at home, was rushed to the hospital, and was immediately diagnosed with and successfully treated for eclampsia.
• During a post-partum exam on March 10, 1995, Dr. Anne Bueter discussed preeclampsia and eclampsia with the Brinkmans, explaining Mrs. Brinkman had an atypical case and counseling that any future pregnancy would be high risk, discussing sterilization options.
• In January 2000, Mrs. Brinkman accidentally became pregnant again, and on January 31, 2000, Dr. Dawn Zimmer informed the Brinkmans that Mrs. Brinkman's 1995 symptoms had not received proper care, and that Dr. Bueter's advice about future pregnancy risks and sterilization was incorrect.

Procedural Posture:

• On December 7, 2000, the Brinkmans filed a medical malpractice complaint with the Indiana Department of Insurance.
• Prior to the medical review panel's decision, defendants sought a preliminary determination of law from the trial court that the claims were barred by the statute of limitations, which the trial court denied.
• The defendants appealed the denial of their motion for preliminary determination to the Indiana Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court), which held that the order was not a final judgment, allowing defendants to raise the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense after the medical review panel reached its decision.
• On July 16, 2004, the medical review panel issued its decision, finding a material issue of fact regarding Dr. Bueter's liability and that Women’s Health Partnership failed to comply with the standard of care, but no failure of care for Dr. Dupler.
• On October 4, 2004, the Brinkmans filed their complaint with the Hamilton Superior Court (trial court).
• The defendants subsequently moved for summary judgment, arguing all claims were barred by the statute of limitations.
• The trial court granted defendants summary judgment on all claims except the one alleging negligent counseling by Dr. Bueter and Women’s Health Partnership regarding future pregnancy risks.
• Both parties appealed the trial court's summary judgment ruling to the Indiana Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court); the Brinkmans (appellants) appealed the claims dismissed by the trial court, and the defendants (appellees) appealed the claim that was not dismissed.
• A divided Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the defendants (meaning it allowed the failure to diagnose/treat claims to proceed) and affirmed the denial of summary judgment on the negligent counseling issue (meaning it also allowed that claim to proceed).
• The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer.