Plank v. Community Hospitals of Indiana, Inc.
981 N.E.2d 49, 2013 Ind. LEXIS 60, 2013 WL 163828 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A party forfeits the right to an evidentiary hearing to challenge the constitutionality of a statute by failing to make a timely assertion of that right, such as before or during trial, rather than waiting until after a jury verdict has been rendered.
Facts:
- In November 2001, Debra L. Plank sought treatment on multiple occasions at Community Hospitals of Indiana, Inc. (“Community”) for severe abdominal pain.
- Physicians at Community failed to diagnose and treat Debra's obstructed bowel.
- As a result of the failure to diagnose and treat, Debra contracted sepsis.
- Debra L. Plank died on December 1, 2001.
- Her husband, Timothy W. Plank, subsequently initiated a medical malpractice action against Community.
Procedural Posture:
- Timothy W. Plank filed a proposed medical malpractice complaint with the Indiana Department of Insurance.
- Plank then filed a complaint in the Marion Circuit Court (trial court).
- A jury returned a verdict in favor of Plank for $8.5 million.
- Community made an oral motion to reduce the award to the statutory cap of $1.25 million, which the trial court granted.
- Eight days later, Plank objected and requested an evidentiary hearing to challenge the cap's constitutionality.
- The trial court initially found Plank had waived his objection, but on a motion to correct error, reversed its waiver finding.
- After briefing, the trial court ultimately denied Plank's request for an evidentiary hearing and entered judgment for $1.25 million.
- Plank, as appellant, appealed to the Indiana Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's denial of Plank's request for an evidentiary hearing.
- Community and the State of Indiana, as appellees, sought transfer to the Supreme Court 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 party forfeit the right to an evidentiary hearing on the constitutionality of a statutory damages cap by failing to raise the issue until eight days after the jury returned a verdict in excess of the cap?
Opinions:
Majority - Rucker, J.
Yes, a party forfeits the right to an evidentiary hearing on the constitutionality of a statutory damages cap by failing to raise the issue in a timely manner. The court distinguished forfeiture, which is the failure to make a timely assertion of a right, from waiver, which is the intentional relinquishment of a known right. Plank had nearly six years before trial and a two-week trial during which he could have raised his constitutional challenge to the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act's damages cap. The court rejected Plank's argument that he could not have known the jury award would exceed the cap, noting that the extent of the damages made an excess verdict foreseeable. By waiting until eight days after the verdict to object and request a hearing, and by initially acquiescing to the reduction of the award, Plank failed to take the necessary steps to preserve his claim and thus forfeited his opportunity for an evidentiary hearing.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the procedural principle that constitutional challenges, even those based on changed factual circumstances, must be raised in a timely fashion. It clarifies the distinction between waiver (intentional relinquishment) and forfeiture (failure to timely assert), holding that the latter can bar a party's claim. The ruling serves as a strong caution to litigants against 'sandbagging'—waiting to see the outcome of a trial before raising potentially dispositive issues. For future plaintiffs in similar situations, this case mandates a proactive strategy, requiring them to challenge statutory damage caps via pre-trial motions rather than waiting until after a large verdict is awarded.
