Sherrow v. GYN, LTD.
745 N.E.2d 880, 2001 Ind. App. LEXIS 539, 2001 WL 290919 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act, parties to a medical review panel proceeding may not include legal argument in their evidentiary submissions, as the panel chairperson is solely responsible for advising the panel on legal questions, and only factual evidence is permitted.
Facts:
- On December 6, 1996, Shannon Kincaid Sherrow filed a proposed complaint with the Indiana Department of Insurance for personal injuries and wrongful death against Dr. James E. Szymanowski, Dr. Richard N. Woodruff, Dr. Marvin Scott Haswell, Reid Hospital and Health Care Center, and GYN, Ltd. (collectively, 'health care providers').
- A medical review panel was convened to review Sherrow's complaint against the health care providers.
- The evidentiary submission tendered on behalf of Dr. Woodruff, Dr. Haswell, and GYN to the medical review panel included legal argument, specifically stating, 'Nor is a physician liable for errors in judgment or honest mistakes in the treatment of a patient.'
- Sherrow objected to the inclusion of legal discussion in the submission and wrote to the panel chairperson, James Riley, requesting that all legal citations and arguments be purged.
- Chairperson Riley refused to require Dr. Woodruff, Dr. Haswell, and GYN to remove the objected-to language, though he did request removal of other language concerning opinions the panel should or should not reach.
- Riley later recused himself as panel chairperson due to a potential conflict of interest, before a successor could be named.
- Dr. Woodruff, Dr. Haswell, and GYN subsequently offered to revise the disputed legal language in their submission to read, 'Nor is a physician liable for an honest mistake of judgment in the treatment of a patient if the physician has reasonable skill and learning and uses ordinary care.'
Procedural Posture:
- On December 6, 1996, Shannon Kincaid Sherrow filed a proposed complaint with the Indiana Department of Insurance for personal injuries and wrongful death against health care providers.
- Sherrow wrote to medical review panel chairperson James Riley, contending that the health care providers' evidentiary submission contained inappropriate legal arguments and requested their removal.
- Riley refused to require the removal of the specific legal statement Sherrow objected to, though he did request removal of other language.
- Sherrow then petitioned the Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Insurance for the removal of Riley as panel chairperson.
- On February 1, 2000, the Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Insurance denied Sherrow's petition.
- One week later, Riley recused himself as panel chairperson due to a potential conflict of interest.
- Before a successor panel chairperson was named, Sherrow filed a motion for preliminary determination of law in the trial court, requesting an order finding that the chairperson could not delegate legal advice and that the objected-to statement was an incorrect statement of law.
- On June 1, 2000, the trial court issued an order, finding the complained-of language 'ineptly paraphrased' but its redaction 'unnecessary' due to an accompanying quote, and determined that a complete redaction of all legal discussion was not required. The trial court ordered the health care providers to modify their submission as they had proposed.
- Sherrow appealed the trial court's ruling on her motion for preliminary determination of law 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 have subject matter jurisdiction to compel the redaction of legal arguments from parties' evidentiary submissions to a medical review panel under the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act, and are such legal arguments inappropriate for inclusion in evidentiary submissions?
Opinions:
Majority - SHARPNACK, Chief Judge
Yes, a trial court does have subject matter jurisdiction to compel the redaction of legal arguments from parties' evidentiary submissions to a medical review panel, and such legal arguments are inappropriate for inclusion in evidentiary submissions under the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act. The court first addressed and found that the health care providers waived their claim that Sherrow failed to exhaust administrative remedies because they did not present this argument to the trial court. Regarding jurisdiction, the court found that while Ind.Code § 34-18-11-1 does not authorize trial courts to instruct or edit a panel's legal understanding, Ind.Code § 34-18-10-14 grants trial courts subject matter jurisdiction to address claims where a panel member is alleged to have failed to carry out statutory duties. The court determined that Sherrow's claim—that the panel chairperson improperly delegated his duty to advise on legal questions by allowing parties to include legal argument—fell within this jurisdictional grant. On the merits, the court reasoned that legal argument is not 'evidence' as defined by Ind.Code §§ 34-18-10-17 and -21, which describe evidence as medical charts, x-rays, lab tests, depositions, and medical treatises. The statutory framework designates the panel chairperson as the sole authority 'to advise the panel relative to any legal question involved in the review proceeding' (Ind.Code § 34-18-10-19). Allowing parties to include legal arguments in their evidentiary submissions would bypass the chairperson's role, make submissions lengthy legal memoranda, and contradict the legislature's intent for panels to operate informally. Therefore, the trial court erred in refusing to redact all legal argument, and the case was reversed and remanded with instructions to do so.
Concurring - SULLIVAN, J.
Justice Sullivan concurs with the majority opinion.
Concurring - MATHIAS, J.
Justice Mathias concurs with the majority opinion.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the distinct roles of parties and the panel chairperson in Indiana medical review panel proceedings, reinforcing the informal nature of the panels. It establishes that trial courts have limited, specific jurisdiction to intervene in panel proceedings, particularly under Ind.Code § 34-18-10-14 to ensure panel members fulfill their statutory duties. By explicitly prohibiting legal arguments in evidentiary submissions, the ruling maintains the integrity of the chairperson's role as the sole legal advisor and prevents the panels from becoming adversarial legal forums, thereby streamlining the pre-litigation review process for medical malpractice claims.
