A recent Court of Appeals of Indiana decision limits future defendants from using Indiana’s Medical Malpractice Act’s statute of limitations to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims. If a plaintiff sends her complaint to the Indiana Department of Insurance within the two-year statute of limitations, but fails to provide the fee until after the two-year window has passed, her claim may still proceed.
In Miller v. Dobbs, the plaintiff mailed her complaint to the Indiana Department of Insurance within the two-year statute of limitations period. However, counsel for plaintiff failed to mail the $7.00 fees required for filing. Upon realizing the error, plaintiff’s counsel mailed the fees but only after the statute of limitations had passed.
At trial, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment based upon the statute of limitations. Defendants successfully argued that the complaint was not officially filed until the fees were received and thus after the statute of limitations had run. The trial court agreed and dismissed the plaintiff’s action.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals overturned the trial court’s grant of summary judgment. While two of the three judges agreed on the outcome, they disagreed on the reason the complaint was not barred.
Judge Kirsch relied heavily upon policy rationales to support the Court’s decision. He noted that Indiana courts prefer to determine cases based upon their merits rather than harmless technicalities. Further, Defendants were notified of the complaint and were not prejudiced by any delay due to mailing the minimal fees. Judge Kirsch suggested courts should treat such complaints “as filed and issue a show cause notice to the plaintiffs that the filing fee had not been paid and that their proposed complaint would be dismissed unless the filing fees were paid in short order.” Miller v. Dobbs, 976 N.E.2d 91, 98 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).
Concurring in the result but for a different reason, Judge Brown believed the specific language of the Act provided sufficient justification for permitting the action. The Act defines a properly filed complaint as one “delivered or mailed by registered or certified mail to the commissioner,” rather than a complaint delivered and mailed along with the fees. See Miller, 976 N.E.2d at 99 (internal citation omitted). The Act only requires fees “accompany each proposed complaint filed.” Id. Judge Brown reasoned that the Act clearly provides that a complaint mailed within the two-year period is filed for purposes of satisfying the statute of limitations, regardless of whether the fees are provided within the same period.
Given this decision, providers defending against malpractice claims have lost the ability to move for dismissal of claims where a plaintiff failed to provide the required filing fee within the statute of limitations but otherwise properly filed a complaint. While the reason for this is clouded by the judges’ differing rationales, the result remains enforceable.
If you have any questions, or for more information, please contact Drew B. Howk at 317.429.3607 or AHowk@HallRender.com, or your regular Hall Render attorney.
