Ledbetter v. Hunter
2006 Ind. LEXIS 138, 2006 WL 401204, 842 N.E.2d 810 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Indiana Medical Malpractice Act's statute of limitations for minors does not violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Indiana Constitution, Article 1, Section 23, if the challenger fails to negate every conceivable rational basis for the legislative classification.
Facts:
- Trenda Ledbetter was born at Ball Memorial Hospital on November 25, 1974.
- She suffered birth complications causing serious and permanent physical and mental injuries.
- Robert Hunter, M.D. and Lawrence Benken, M.D. were the physicians who attended Trenda's birth.
- Trenda's mother, Marsha Ledbetter, did not assert a malpractice claim on behalf of her daughter for religious reasons.
- Less than two years after her eighteenth birthday, Trenda Ledbetter filed a medical malpractice claim on April 22, 1994.
- Trenda Ledbetter died shortly after the Indiana Court of Appeals' decision in 1995.
Procedural Posture:
- Trenda Ledbetter filed a medical malpractice claim against Ball Memorial Hospital, Robert Hunter, M.D., and Lawrence Benken, M.D. in Marion Superior Court (trial court) on April 22, 1994.
- The defendants moved to dismiss, contending the action was not commenced before Trenda's eighth birthday.
- The trial court granted the motion to dismiss.
- Trenda Ledbetter appealed to the Indiana Court of Appeals (appellant), with the hospital and doctors as appellees.
- The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's dismissal and remanded the case for consideration of the constitutionality of the statutory limitation period under the Privileges and Immunities Clause (Ledbetter v. Hunter, 652 N.E.2d 543 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995)).
- Trenda Ledbetter died shortly thereafter, and her mother, Marsha Ledbetter, was substituted as the plaintiff.
- After further proceedings on remand, the trial court again dismissed the action, finding the plaintiff had failed to demonstrate the statute was unconstitutional.
- Marsha Ledbetter (appellant) appealed the second dismissal to the Indiana Court of Appeals (appellees being Robert Hunter, M.D., Lawrence Benken, M.D., and Ball Memorial Hospital).
- The Indiana Court of Appeals concluded that the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act's statute of limitations for minors violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Indiana Constitution (Ledbetter v. Hunter, 810 N.E.2d 1095, 1103 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004)).
- The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer, thereby automatically vacating the opinion of the Court of Appeals.
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 the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act's statute of limitations for minors, which provides a shorter limitation period than for minors injured by other torts, violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Indiana Constitution, Article 1, Section 23?
Opinions:
Majority - Dickson, Justice
No, the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act's statute of limitations for minors does not violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Indiana Constitution. The court applied the two-prong test from Collins v. Day for Article 1, Section 23 of the Indiana Constitution. Regarding the first prong, the plaintiff argued the Act creates two unequally treated classes: children injured by medical malpractice and those injured by other torts. The court found the plaintiff failed to negate the legislative basis for this unequal treatment, which was previously upheld in Johnson v. St. Vincent Hosp., Inc. as designed to protect the availability of health care services. The burden is on the challenger to negate "every reasonable basis for the classification," and merely demonstrating a lack of affirmative documentary proof from the defendants does not establish unreasonableness. Concerning the second prong, the plaintiff asserted the Act treats subclasses of minor medical malpractice victims differently based on whether their parents timely file claims. The court rejected this, stating the statute applies the same limitation regime to all minor victims of medical malpractice. Any differing outcomes arise from compliance with statutory deadlines, not from the statute creating distinct classes. Parents are legally and naturally obligated to act on behalf of their minor children, including initiating lawsuits.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the high burden placed on parties challenging statutes under the Indiana Privileges and Immunities Clause, particularly in the context of legislative classifications. It demonstrates the Indiana Supreme Court's substantial deference to legislative discretion, even when the state's rationale might not be overtly supported by current evidentiary submissions. The decision solidifies the constitutionality of the medical malpractice statute of limitations for minors, underscoring that challenges must negate every conceivable rational basis for the classification, rather than merely pointing to a lack of affirmative evidence from the opposing side. It also reiterates the legal responsibility of parents to pursue claims on behalf of their children within prescribed statutory deadlines.
