Workman v. O'BRYAN
944 N.E.2d 61, 2011 WL 663819, 2011 Ind. App. LEXIS 237 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Indiana Medical Malpractice Act's two-year occurrence-based statute of limitations may be extended to allow a claim if a patient could not reasonably be expected to discover their injury and its connection to malpractice within the statutory period, or if, after discovery within the period, there was insufficient time to file, requiring filing within a reasonable time thereafter.
Facts:
- Starting February 4, 2004, Dr. Workman treated Ann O’Bryan for Hodgkin’s disease.
- On February 13, 2004, a PET scan ordered by Dr. Workman showed a "very enlarged urine filled bladder" and the radiologist noted a potential for "acute urinary retention or neurogenic bladder."
- During subsequent visits with Dr. Workman from February to July 2004, O’Bryan was not informed of the incidental finding of urinary retention, nor did Dr. Workman take any action or forward the results to her other physicians.
- On November 1, 2004, O’Bryan underwent gallbladder surgery at Methodist Hospital, after which she experienced an inability to urinate.
- On November 3, 2004, a urologist diagnosed O’Bryan with "[p]ostop urinary retention," telling her it was a temporary, post-surgical condition that would resolve, and instructed her on catheterization.
- On January 28, 2005, O’Bryan had her last visit with Dr. Workman, her Hodgkin’s disease having gone into clinical remission.
- On December 14, 2006, after feeling ill, O’Bryan was informed by her primary care physician’s nurse that laboratory tests showed she had renal (kidney) failure.
- In March 2007, after relocating to Texas and reviewing her medical file from Dr. Workman, O’Bryan discovered the 2004 PET scan results, which her new physicians then used to diagnose her with urinary retention due to a neurogenic bladder and reduced kidney function.
Procedural Posture:
- On December 12, 2007, Ann O’Bryan filed a proposed complaint with the Indiana Department of Insurance, alleging negligence by Dr. Workman and Dr. Daniel Voegele.
- Dr. Workman filed a motion for preliminary determination of law (summary judgment) with the trial court, asserting the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense.
- The trial court issued an order denying Dr. Workman’s motion for summary judgment.
- Dr. Workman filed a motion to reconsider or, alternatively, to certify the order for interlocutory appeal.
- The trial court certified its summary judgment order for interlocutory appeal.
- On Dr. Workman’s motion, the Court of Appeals of Indiana accepted jurisdiction for interlocutory appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is Dr. Workman entitled to summary judgment on the two-year occurrence-based statute of limitations, given that Ann O’Bryan filed her claim beyond the initial two-year period but argued that she discovered her injury and its connection to malpractice too late or had insufficient time to file after discovery?
Opinions:
Majority - Robb, Chief Judge
No, Dr. Workman is not entitled to summary judgment because Ann O’Bryan has raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether she filed her proposed complaint within a reasonable time after discovering her injury and its potential link to malpractice. The court applied the Booth v. Wiley analysis for medical malpractice statutes of limitation. First, the alleged malpractice occurred between February 13, 2004, and O’Bryan’s last visit with Dr. Workman on January 28, 2005, making the statutory two-year period expire on January 28, 2007. Second, O’Bryan’s discovery date (or trigger date) was at the earliest December 14, 2006, when she was diagnosed with renal failure, or at the latest March 2007, when she reviewed her file and connected the PET scan to her condition. The court rejected Dr. Workman’s argument that November 2004 was the discovery date, as O’Bryan was told her post-operative urinary retention was temporary. Third, assuming the earliest discovery date of December 14, 2006, only approximately six weeks remained until the statutory deadline. The court determined this was not reasonably possible for O’Bryan to piece together facts, investigate Dr. Workman’s omission, obtain expert opinions, and consult an Indiana attorney while relocating to Texas. Therefore, under Booth, O’Bryan was obligated to file within a reasonable time thereafter. O’Bryan filed her complaint on December 12, 2007, roughly ten and a half months after the statutory period expired and nearly one year after her earliest possible discovery date. Considering the facts—particularly that the link between Dr. Workman’s omission and her condition was not immediately obvious—the court concluded it could not say as a matter of law that this delay was unreasonable. The court cited precedents suggesting delays over one year might be unreasonable but emphasized that there is no bright-line rule for what constitutes a reasonable time, especially given the Indiana Supreme Court’s stance in Van Dusen v. Stotts against such rigid approaches. Thus, a material issue of fact remained, precluding summary judgment.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the application of the "reasonable time" exception to Indiana's medical malpractice statute of limitations, particularly when discovery of injury or its connection to malpractice occurs late in or after the two-year statutory period. By emphasizing a fact-intensive inquiry rather than a rigid bright-line rule, the court ensures that the statute does not unfairly bar claims where plaintiffs, despite reasonable diligence, require time to investigate complex medical issues and navigate the legal system. This flexibility protects patients with latent injuries or those who face practical barriers to filing promptly, making the statute of limitations a shield against stale claims rather than an absolute barrier to justice in complex medical scenarios.
