Doe Corp. v. Honoré
2011 Ind. App. LEXIS 718, 950 N.E.2d 722 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trial court retains subject matter jurisdiction to enforce a medical review panel chair's statutory duties, including ensuring compliance with agreements regarding panel member expertise, even after the panel has issued its opinion and the underlying complaint is pending in another court.
Facts:
- Andrea Honoré resided at Doe Corporation's facility in Hamilton County, Indiana, from December 23, 2002, until her death on April 3, 2004.
- The Estate of Andrea Honoré filed a proposed complaint for damages with the Indiana Department of Insurance (DOI), alleging that Doe Corporation breached the reasonable standard of medical and nursing care.
- On June 14, 2007, the parties agreed to the selection of James A. Fels as the Medical Review Panel (MRP) chairman.
- Doe Corporation requested that the MRP Chair prohibit the nurse member from rendering an opinion on causation, asserting it was beyond a nurse's scope of training and expertise according to state law.
- On February 6, 2009, counsel for the Estate responded that while disagreeing with Doe Corporation's legal analysis, it would be acceptable if the written opinion of the panel only included causation opinions from the physician members to expedite the process.
- On February 9, 2009, the MRP Chair sent a letter to counsel agreeing that "the physician panelists will be the only ones to render any causation opinion."
- On June 25, 2009, the MRP issued its opinion, in which the physician members found no causation, but the nurse member found that Doe Corporation failed to comply with the standard of care and that its conduct was a factor in the resultant damages.
- In an affidavit dated September 9, 2009, the MRP Chair acknowledged the prior agreement but stated he permitted the nurse member to sign an opinion regarding causation, concluding the Medical Malpractice Act did not grant parties or the chair the right to dictate the content of the written opinion.
Procedural Posture:
- The Estate of Andrea Honoré filed a proposed complaint for damages with the Indiana Department of Insurance, initiating a medical malpractice action against Doe Corporation.
- The parties agreed to the selection of James A. Fels as the MRP chairman, and a Medical Review Panel (MRP) was formed.
- The MRP issued its opinion on June 25, 2009.
- On July 20, 2009, Doe Corporation filed a motion for a Preliminary Determination of Law (PDL) with the Marion Superior Court (the trial court), asking it to remand the MRP panel opinion for a new opinion.
- On July 27, 2009, the Estate filed its complaint for damages in Hamilton County.
- On August 25, 2009, the Marion Superior Court initially granted Doe Corporation’s motion, remanding the panel opinion with instructions to use a new nurse striking panel, to prohibit the nurse member from opining on causation, and to allow physician members to review/revise their opinions.
- On September 4, 2009, the Marion Superior Court reversed its previous order, finding it was issued in error before the Estate's response deadline.
- The Estate then filed a motion to dismiss Doe Corporation’s motion for a PDL, alleging the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and that the same action was pending in another state court (Trial Rules 12(B)(1) and 12(B)(8)).
- The Marion Superior Court heard argument on these motions on February 9, 2010.
- On June 10, 2010, the Marion Superior Court issued detailed findings and conclusions, dismissing Doe Corporation’s motion for PDL, concluding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction and that the same action was pending in another state court.
- Doe Corporation brought this interlocutory appeal from the trial court’s dismissal order to the Court of Appeals of Indiana.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court lack subject matter jurisdiction to hear a motion concerning a medical review panel chair's failure to perform statutory duties when the motion is filed after the panel has issued its written opinion, and the underlying medical malpractice complaint is pending in another state court?
Opinions:
Majority - Friedlander, Judge
No, a trial court does not lack subject matter jurisdiction to hear a motion concerning a medical review panel chair's failure to perform statutory duties simply because the motion is filed after the panel opinion is issued or because the underlying complaint is pending elsewhere. The court reversed the trial court's dismissal, finding it did possess subject matter jurisdiction. While Indiana Code § 34-18-11-1(c) generally limits a trial court's jurisdiction for Preliminary Determinations of Law (PDLs) to the period before an MRP opinion is issued, Doe Corporation's motion, though titled a PDL, was in substance a request to enforce the MRP Chair's statutory duties under Indiana Code § 34-18-10-14. This statute explicitly grants trial courts subject matter jurisdiction in cases where a panel member or chair fails to carry out required statutory duties. The MRP Chair failed in his duty to advise the panel on legal questions and reneged on a specific agreement regarding the nurse's scope, particularly concerning causation opinions, which nurses are not permitted to give under Indiana law, as established in Nasser v. St. Vincent Hosp. & Health Servs. The trial court has inherent power to direct the panel's activities to ensure statutory compliance. Regarding dismissal under Trial Rule 12(B)(8) (same action pending), the court found that while the parties were the same, the remedies sought were different: Doe Corporation sought enforcement of statutory duties for the MRP, while the Hamilton County action sought damages for negligence. Although the outcome of one might affect the other, the remedies were distinct, and thus dismissal on 12(B)(8) grounds was also improper.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the scope of a trial court's subject matter jurisdiction in medical malpractice actions, particularly concerning preliminary legal determinations and oversight of medical review panels. It establishes that while specific statutory deadlines for PDLs exist, the court retains inherent jurisdiction to enforce statutory duties of MRP members and chairs. The ruling reinforces the principle that courts can look beyond the label of a motion to its substance to determine jurisdiction, ensuring accountability for panel conduct. This decision is crucial for maintaining the integrity and adherence to legal standards within the medical review panel process, potentially allowing parties to challenge significant procedural irregularities even after a panel's opinion has been rendered, thus preventing the circumvention of established legal limitations on expert testimony.
