On August 10, 2012, the Indiana Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Houser v. Kaufman and held that a woman could continue her claim against the physician who delivered her 35 years before she filed her claim.
Stacy Kaufman filed a proposed medical malpractice claim against the estate of anonymous physician Dr. K in 2009; 35 years after Dr. K delivered her. After Ms. Kaufman’s birth, Dr. K had ordered a blood test for phenylketonuria (PKU) and the blood test revealed that Ms. Kaufman did have PKU. Allegedly, Dr. K. never communicated the result to Kaufman’s parents. Ms. Kaufman did display symptoms that were consistent with her having untreated PKU, including developmental delays. In November, 2005, Ms. Kaufman gave birth to C.K. who was ultimately diagnosed with PKU in 2007. Upon recommendation of C.K.’s genetist, Ms. Kaufman’s mother obtained her daughter’s birth records and discovered the test confirming PKU. The Kaufmans filed a proposed complaint against the Estate of Dr. K on August 4, 2009 alleging negligence in his failure to communicate the results of the PKU test. The Estate filed a motion for summary judgment on the basis of the statute of limitations. The Trial Court denied the motion and the Estate appealed.
The Court of Appeals noted that, in the case of a missed disease diagnosis, the Act’s statutory period “does not begin to run until either a correct diagnosis is made or the patient has sufficient facts to make it possible to discover the alleged injury.” Brinkman v. Bueter, 879 N.E.2d 549, 554 (Ind. 2008). The Estate suggested that the reasoning of cases such as Martin and Van Dusen should not apply Ms. Kaufman’s PKU had manifested itself early in her childhood. The Court noted that the issue is when did the claimant possess enough information that, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have led the claimant to the discovery of the alleged malpractice and resulting injury? The Court noted that the statute of limitations theoretically expired in 1983, 2 years after Dr. K died (See Workman v. O’Bryan, 944 N.E.2d 61, 65-66 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans. Denied: where malpractice claim is based upon a failure to diagnose an illness or disease, the occurrence of malpractice extends to, but not beyond, the last opportunity the physician had to give a proper diagnosis.) The Court further noted that evidence designated to the trial court showed that the Kaufmans exercised reasonable diligence to determine the cause of the symptoms they noticed in Ms. Kaufman as a child. The Court noted that there was no evidence that any of the doctors they visited ever mentioned PKU as a possible cause of Ms. Kaufman’s ailments. Due to inconclusive evidence as to the date that Ms. Kaufman learned that she did have PKU and that Dr. K had committed malpractice by not informing her parents of the diagnosis, the court held that the trial court properly denied the Estate’s motion for summary judgment.
The Court of Appeals acknowledged that its ruling was allowing a 4 decade old case to continue. However, it noted
Given the highly unique facts here, and given the designated evidence of diligence by Stacy and her parents with respect to her PKU diagnosis (or lack thereof for the first thirty-three years of her life), we conclude that allowing this case to proceed does not contravene public policy and is consistent with the Act’s goals of maintaining sufficient medical treatment and controlling malpractice insurance costs by, in part, encouraging the prompt presentation of claims.
Obviously, this holding extends the Martin v Richey exception to allow claims that are decades old to proceed. While the Court acknowledges the unique facts of the Kaufman case allow for its continuance, it does allow for the possibility that other Plaintiffs may claim similar facts should allow their cases to continue. This will create an issue for health care providers who rely upon the statute of limitations to provide finality to the possibility of claims being filed. Further, while allowing claims from medical care rendered decades previously, the Kaufmann decision fails to address the likelihood that witnesses have passed away, memories are forgotten or medical records destroyed. (IC 16-39-7-1: physicians required to maintain medical records for 7 years)
Should you have any questions, please contact your regular Hall Render attorney.
