If you suffered harm due to mistreatment by several providers, understanding this ruling is essential before seeking damages recovery in Indiana courts.

What the Court Ruled in Abbas v. Neter‑Nu

In a case involving a below-knee amputation following negligent medical care, the Supreme Court affirmed the jury’s decision and made key clarifications. First, the court confirmed that if multiple healthcare professionals are at fault, each may be held fully liable up to the statutory cap. Second, prejudgment interest must be calculated based on each defendant’s capped liability separately, not jointly.

The Court also addressed attempted jury instructions about intervening cause and hindsight. It found no error in the trial court’s rejection of those instructions. Finally, the court reversed a prior appellate ruling that had invalidated the verdict due to procedural errors, determining that those errors did not justify a new trial under Indiana’s joint-and-several liability rules.

How This Ruling Affects Medical Malpractice Claims in Indiana

If more than one provider contributed to your injury, the Indiana malpractice cap no longer limits total recovery to one defendant. Each provider may be responsible for the full cap. That means more avenues for compensation, especially when the injury involves significant economic loss or long-term care.

Prejudgment interest also matters. The court ruled that interest must apply to each provider’s portion of the cap separately. This provides additional recovery that reflects the true time value of compensation lost since the injury occurred.

Families and victims must document specific care failures by each provider. Medical records, expert testimony, and precise treatment timelines now play a crucial role in splitting liability and calculating interest correctly.

Steps You Should Take If Multiple Providers Are Involved

First, identify every medical provider involved in your care. Obtain complete medical records and correspondence to analyze each provider’s actions. Then, consult medical experts to assess whether each person breached the standard of care.

You must also pay close attention to filing requirements. Indiana requires notice within 180 days under the Medical Malpractice Act and suit filing within two years of discovery. Taking timely steps ensures you preserve claims against all responsible providers and qualifies your case under the Abbas framework.

Strong Legal Strategy Shapes the Outcome of Medical Malpractice Claims

When your case involves multiple healthcare providers, building a successful claim becomes far more technical than most people expect. Every step matters, from identifying each provider’s role to selecting the correct legal theories to support separate claims. A skilled attorney will understand how to frame the allegations to preserve your right to the full statutory cap for each defendant and ensure that prejudgment interest is calculated correctly. Without that level of precision, you risk leaving compensation on the table.

Attorneys experienced in Indiana medical malpractice litigation stay current with changes in state appellate rulings, such as the decision in Abbas. They know how to present evidence that links each provider to specific conduct, how to coordinate expert testimony to avoid overlap or inconsistency, and how to argue for maximum compensation under the statutory framework. This type of case preparation is not routine. It requires focus, planning, and a deep understanding of how the courts interpret liability and damages under Indiana law.

Call an Indiana Medical Negligence Lawyer Who Knows the Rules

If a medical error from more than one provider led to harm, Indiana law now allows your family to hold each responsible for full capped damages and individual interest. That can significantly affect the total recovery available. Contact Padove Law at 219‑836‑2200 today for a free consultation. We will review your treatment history, identify responsible parties, and help you determine whether to pursue claims entirely in line with Indiana law.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff went to Marion Open MRI (the defendant) to get MRIs of his spine. Marion Open MRI is not a hospital, but an outpatient diagnostic imaging center that is not a qualified healthcare provider under the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act. Marion Open MRI independently contracted with a radiologist to read MRIs and sent the plaintiff’s MRI images to the radiologist for interpretation. The radiologist was never physically present at the Marion Open MRI facility and instead interpreted the images from his home office. The radiologist’s reports appeared on Marion Open MRI letterhead and had zero indication of his independent contractor status.

The plaintiff filed his complaint alleging medical malpractice, claiming that Marion Open MRI and the radiologist failed to diagnose and treat his spinal condition which has now resulted in permanent injuries. Marion Open MRI argued that it was not liable for the radiologist’s actions because the relevant law does not apply to non-hospital entities. In response, the plaintiff argued there was a dispute of material fact whether the radiologist was acting as an apparent agent for Marion Open MRI, even considering the fact that Marion Open MRI is not a hospital. When there is a genuine dispute of material fact, the case must go to trial. The trial court ultimately decided not to go to trial and ruled in favor of Marion Open MRI. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court decision, holding that “it is reasonable for a patient in a diagnostic imaging center to believe that the radiologists interpreting images for the center are employees or agents of the center, unless the center informs them of the contrary.” The case was appealed to the Indiana Supreme Court.

more Indiana Supreme Court’s Decision

Marion Open MRI argued that because it is not a hospital, it cannot be held liable for the radiologist’s alleged negligence under the apparent agency legal doctrine. In making its decision, the Court considered vicarious liability, which involves a court holding a party legally responsible for negligence of another, not because the party did anything wrong but rather because of the party’s relationship with the wrongdoer. When there is no employer-employee or principal-agent relationship, a principal may still be viarious liability for the negligence of another under the apparent agency legal doctrine. Apparent agency may be established when a third party reasonably believes there is a principal-agent relationship based on the principal’s communications to the third party. Apparent agency concerns only whether a principal’s communications induce a third party to reasonably believe there is a principal–agent relationship. Under certain circumstances, if there’s a finding of apparent agency, then a party can be said to be vicarious liable.

Indiana courts look at two factors when considering apparent agency: (1) the principal’s manifestations, or communications, that an agency relationship exists and (2) the patient’s resulting reliance. Here, the Court decided that despite the fact that Marion Open MRI is not a hospital, patients increasingly rely on non-hospital medical entites, and hospitals and non-hospital medical entites can make representations that reasonably lead a patient to believe that the physicians providing them healthcare are the facility’s employees or agents. Ultimately, the Court decided that apparent agency principles apply outside of the hospital context, preventing non-hospital medical entities from evading liability in negligence cases and allowing these entities to be held vicariously liable for the actions of physicians they independently contract with.

Have You Suffered Injuries after Seeking Health Treatment in Indiana?

If you or a loved one suffered injuries after seeking health treatment at an Indiana medical provider, you may be able to obtain monterey compensation through an Indiana medical malpractice suit. The attorneys at Padove Law are experienced in helping victims receover the compensation they deserve. Contact Padove Law today at 219-836-2200 to schedule a free consultation.

In a recent Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals opinion, the court considered a federal medical malpractice case involving accrual dates. The plaintiff brought suit on behalf of herself and her son against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) after her son sustained a permanent injury to his left arm during birth. Once her son was born, the plaintiff immediately noticed that her son’s arm was injured. Because the hospital where the plaintiff delivered her child was a federally qualified health center that receives federal funding and grant money from the federal government, it means that its employees are covered against malpractice claims under the FTCA. The plaintiff, however, did not realize that the hospital qualified as a federally qualified health center despite the fact that such information was available on the internet, which meant that she would be unable to sue for medical malpractice.

After exhausting other remedies, the plaintiff eventually refiled the case more than three years after her son was born. The defendant, the United States, moved for summary judgment on the basis that the plaintiff’s claims had surpassed the FTCA’s two-year statute of limitations.

On appeal, the court sided with the United States, claiming that the plaintiff was not entitled to relief. The plaintiff argued that her claim accrued on May 30th, 2014, when she retained her attorney as her counsel. According to the plaintiff, because she presented her claim on February 19, 2016, and her claim would only violate the statute of limitations under the FTCA if it accrued before February 19th, 2014, her claim was timely. The court disagreed and held that her claim actually accrued when her son was born in December 2013. Because more than three years had passed since accrual, the plaintiff’s case was deemed untimely by the court under the FTCA’s two-year statute of limitations.

Claims under the FTCA can often be complex and confusing for potential plaintiffs. Such claims will be barred unless they are “presented in writing to the appropriate federal agency within two years after such a claim accrues.”

Under the FTCA, claims accrue either (1) when the individual becomes subjectively aware of the government’s involvement in the injury, or (2) when the individual acquires information that would prompt a reasonable person to inquire further into a potential government-related cause of the injury. Preference is given to whichever happens first. If, for example, like the plaintiff in the preceding case, the hospital was known and publicized as a government-funded hospital, then the birth of her son should have prompted her to inquire further into government-related causes in December 2013 when her son was born. Thus, the plaintiff failed to satisfy the statute of limitations requirement.

Do You Need an Indiana Personal Injury Attorney?

If you or someone you know has been injured in an Indiana medical malpractice case, contact attorney Burton A. Padove. Attorney Padove has years of experience representing clients in all types of personal injury cases and will advocate on your behalf to help you pursue the compensation you deserve. To schedule a free consultation today, contact our team at 219-836-2200.

Under Indiana Comparative Fault law, if the defendant can convince the court that the plaintiff was partially responsible for some of their own injuries, the plaintiff’s award will be reduced by the amount he or she was at fault. However, if the defendant can convince the court that the plaintiff was 51% responsible or more, the plaintiff’s claim will actually be barred, and they might end up owing the defendant money.

For an example of the role of comparative fault in Indiana personal injury cases, take a recent 7th circuit medical malpractice case. According to the court’s written opinion, the plaintiff went to see the defendant, a nurse practitioner, after he failed a pre-employment physical exam due to high blood pressure. The defendant diagnosed the plaintiff with obesity and hypertension. She also gave him medication, but she did not explain to him his condition or the importance of taking the medicine and keeping regular appointments. Over the next five years, the plaintiff visited the defendant several times for care but would routinely go long periods without returning or taking his medicine.

At one visit, new lab tests were ordered, but the defendant never reviewed the results. If she had, she likely would have noticed the signs of kidney disease. However, the plaintiff did not learn for another year and a half that his hypertension severely damaged his kidneys. By the time he learned about it, he had end-stage renal disease. The plaintiff subsequently began hemodialysis treatment and received a kidney transplant. It’s likely he will need to continue hemodialysis and receive another transplant in the future as a result, and his past and future medical treatments come with significant costs.

The plaintiff sued his nurse practitioner for failing to educate him about his condition and check his lab results. The defendant claimed, however, that the plaintiff was himself partially responsible because he regularly missed appointments, once not returning for two years, and did not take his medicine. Under Indiana law, the plaintiff could potentially have his claim reduced, or even have it barred altogether, if the defendant successfully proved that he was responsible. While this case is a medical malpractice case, issues of comparative fault are not limited to medical malpractice and are likely to come up in other personal injury claims, such as car and truck accidents, slip and falls, and defective products.

Are You Looking for an Indiana Personal Injury Attorney?

Indiana injury law is complex, and injured plaintiffs often just want to focus on healing and moving forward but struggle to cover expensive medical bills. If you have recently been injured because of someone else’s negligence, contact Burton A. Padove today. Attorney Padove is an experienced, dedicated, and compassionate Indiana personal injury attorney who has years of experience representing Indiana medical malpractice victims in a wide variety of cases. His goal is the same as yours: to get you the compensation you deserve and to zealously defend your rights. To learn more, contact Padove Law at 877-446-5924 today.

As experienced Highland medical malpractice attorneys can explain, Indiana law has been written and interpreted this way to compel insurers to treat medical malpractice claimants fairly. Think about it: If the worst that could happen at trial for a medical malpractice insurer is that they’d have to pay the policy limits, what incentive would there be for them to settle for that amount – even if a person’s losses were obviously far in excess of that, before the case goes to trial? It would cost them the same either way.

Per the 1972 Indiana Court of Appeals decision in Bennett v. Slater, an insurer is liable to its insured for a judgment exceeding policy limits when the insurer had exclusive control of defending/settlement and doesn’t settle within the policy limits because of bad faith or negligence.

In a recent case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, justices considered liability of two different insurers where a physician and hospital were alleged to have been negligent in the post-operative care of a 36-year-old woman, who died as a result. The surgery was supposed to be routine, but post-op, while still hospitalized, she suffered internal bleeding, required another surgery, then died four days later. It was known almost from the beginning that the insured doctor had not responded immediately to the emergency because he’d left the premises to exercise. However, initial discovery findings, as framed by the defense, suggested the doctor was unaware of the emergency and that he’d have responded immediately. However, it was later discovered that on the evening after the surgery, the doctor was notified by voicemail that the patient’s blood tests showed troubling indicators, yet he still left the hospital to exercise.

Medical Malpractice Insurer Rejects Numerous Settlements for Policy Limit

Plaintiffs, the woman’s widower and minor children, sued the hospital, the doctor and the nurses for breaching their duty to meet the accepted standard of care for decedent, resulting in her death. An attorney for plaintiffs offered numerous times to settle the case for the limits of the policy, or $200,000. The insurer rejected these offers prior to trial and in mediation. Just before trial, defense offered half the policy limit, which plaintiffs rejected. Just after trial started, insurer offered to settle for the full policy limit, an offer plaintiffs rejected and countered with $2.3 million, which defense declined.

When jurors decided the case in favor of plaintiffs, no one was really surprised. But up until that point, the biggest verdicts in that region were somewhere between $2 million and $3 million. In this case, for losses suffered by defendants’ breach of the standard of care, jurors awarded $14 million, which included an award for punitive damages (based on egregiousness of defendant’s conduct, as opposed to losses of plaintiffs). The verdict was appealed and the amount reduced. A cap on a physician’s liability was going to lower the verdict anyway. However, the court ruled plaintiffs had the option of pursuing a claim of failure to settle directly against the insurer for damages in excess of the policy limit (with the court noting capped liability doesn’t incentivize an insurer to abide its duty to exercise reasonable care when settling medical malpractice claims). Plaintiffs thus “step into the shoes” of the physician for breach of indemnification duty.

Plaintiffs collected $1.7 million from the hospital/insurer and then pursued insurer for the excess verdict. The insurer had its own insurer liability policy, purchased in the midst of these events. That insurer rejected coverage of the claim, saying it wasn’t responsible to cover claims its customer insurer refused to pay by way of a wrongful act (i.e., breach of duty, neglect, error, omission, misleading, etc.). Finally, the doctor’s insurer settled out-of-court with the woman’s family for an undisclosed sum. That case was closed.

But the saga wasn’t over because the doctor’s insurer still insisted its own carrier should reimburse it for the final excess settlement amount.

Which Medical Malpractice Insurer Should Pay?

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the larger insurance company, finding evidence sufficient that the doctor’s medical malpractice insurer rejected numerous fair settlement offers from plaintiff and thus was responsible to pay the excess verdict itself.

The federal appellate court, however, reversed in part. Although justices said there was a fair bit of evidence that the doctor’s insurer should have known this case wasn’t going to go in its favor and it would have been wise to settle before that case reached a verdict, there wasn’t enough evidence to show they had committed a wrongful act by rejecting plaintiffs’ repeated offers to settle for the policy limit. The case was remanded back to the lower court for further consideration.

Indiana Highland medical malpractice lawyers note that this all began with a surgery and wrongful death that occurred in 2002. This most recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit was just issued late last month. Even though the woman’s family is no longer involved in the litigation, the case gives a sense of how far defendants and insurers will fight to avoid paying on these claims when there is even the slightest chance they won’t have to (and sometimes, even when there isn’t).

You need an attorney who is willing at the outset to thoroughly and accurately assess your claims, engage in aggressive but strategic settlement negotiations and understand when insurers are objectively being reasonable and when there’s a good chance they aren’t acting in good faith.

No patient should ever try to negotiate with a doctor or hospital on their own. Experienced medical malpractice attorneys in Northwest Indiana are committed to our clients and can help answer questions about the viability of your claim.

Indiana Injury Attorney Burton A. Padove handles personal injury claims throughout northern Indiana, including Highland, Gary and Hammond.

Additional Resources:

Medical Protective Company of Fort Wayne, Indiana v. AIG Specialty Insurance Company, Dec. 18, 2018, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

More Blog Entries:

Indiana Appeals Court: $1.3M for Rear-End Accident Injuries Not Excessive, Dec. 21, 2018, Indiana Medical Malpractice Attorney Blog

The South Bend Tribune reports the lawsuit was filed in June 2015. The defendant physician died about a year later, but the case continued against his estate. The plaintiffs alleged their athlete son underwent a shoulder surgery he did not need, resulting in pain that will follow him the rest of his life. A two-day trial resulted in jurors deciding an award for $744,000 to be paid to the family. The boy reportedly suffered a wrestling injury and sought treatment.

Although he did not initially seek medical attention, the pain later became unbearable. The physician reportedly recommended surgery for the low-grade injury, involving an operation to remove part of his clavicle. The plaintiffs’ attorney now says the choice the doctor gave them – have surgery or live with the pain – was a “false one” because there were numerous other conservative treatment options that could have been employed first. It was not a decision that needed to be either-or.

As our Gary medical malpractice lawyers can explain, these cases are not held to the same standards of proof as general negligence cases. Jurors will be asked whether the doctor breached the applicable standard of care for his or her specialty. That means an expert witness with the same education and training must testify to this, asserting that a reasonably prudent doctor in the same situation would have acted differently.

In this case, jurors additionally heard depositions taken from the three-member medical review panel that first examined the claim. This is standard in Indiana medical malpractice claims, in which the Indiana Department of Insurance notes either party may request the formation of a medical review panel 20 days after the complaint is filed. The panel is allowed to consider:

• Medical charts;
• X-rays;
• Lab tests;
• Excerpts of treatises;
• Depositions of witnesses (including parties); and
• Any other form of evidence allowable.

The review panel in this case was comprised of orthopedic physicians from around Indiana, and they concluded more conservative treatment options – such as steroid injections – should have been taken first before surgery.

The defendant’s lawyer argued that just because other doctors would have made a different decision doesn’t necessarily mean it was medical malpractice. Furthermore, he alleged the family chose surgery because they wanted their son to return to sports as soon as possible, and they were aware of the possible risks of surgery. Their son also reportedly had scar tissue from other injuries that could have been the culprit for his pain.

Ultimately, the jury disagreed.

Although $744,000 sounds like a lot, it should be noted the maximum amount one can receive under Indiana’s medical malpractice damages cap is $1.65 million.One of the lowest damages caps in the nation, that’s still up from $1.25 million, which was the damages cap for 10 years prior to 2015. Doctors are only responsible for the first $250,000 in damages, with a limit of no more than $750,000 annually. The difference between that and the damages cap limit is paid for by the Indiana Patient Compensation Fund.

In this case, the family asked for $10,000 per year for what would be the remainder of the teen’s expectant life span, which would be 62 years. Jurors awarded him $12,000 annually.

Indiana Medical Malpractice Attorney Burton A. Padove handles personal injury claims throughout northern Indiana, including Highland, Gary and Hammond. Additional Resources: $744,000 verdict against South Bend orthopedic surgeon, May 20, 2017, By Lincoln Wright, South Bend Tribune

More Blog Entries: Mottershaw v. Ledbetter – Improper Evidence Exposure in Injury Case, Feb. 25, 2017, Gary Medical Malpractice Attorney Blog

Usually, the question of what can and cannot be heard by jurors is decided long before the personal injury claim goes to court. Numerous pretrial hearings will be held to hammer out any disputes with regard to what evidence is pertinent.

In some cases, evidence that is deemed inappropriate for the jury still makes its way into the courtroom, either due to rogue questioning by an attorney or misunderstanding of a witness or some other oversight. In these situations, the court might determine there are grounds for a mistrial or a retrial. more Judges are loathe to declare mistrials or retrials, given the time and expense that goes into each trial. However, sometimes the violation is so egregious there is no alternative.

That was what happened recently in Mottershaw v. Ledbetter, a medical malpractice lawsuit that was reviewed by the Alabama Supreme Court.

According to court records a woman underwent a CT scan of her sinuses in 2007. Following that procedure, a radiologist reviewed the scan and failed to detect a cancerous mass in the woman’s sinus cavity. Two weeks later, she underwent another scan, and there again, a radiologist did not detect the cancerous mass.

Four months later, that same woman underwent an MRI of her head. It was at this time that a radiologist reading the scans found cancer in the patient’s brain. Soon after, the woman underwent treatment for the cancer. However, those treatments were unsuccessful, and she died the following year.

The administrator of the patient’s estate sued a number of health care providers on behalf of the deceased woman, alleging medical malpractice and wrongful death. It was alleged that the health care providers failed to offer a timely diagnosis of the patient’s cancer, and therefore breached the applicable standard of care.

Eventually, all but two of the defendants were dismissed.

During a pretrial motion, the plaintiff filed a motion in limine seeking to bar all references to indications that other health care providers aside from the defendants had also failed to detect her nasal cancer. The court granted this motion.

The case went to trial. At the trial, the defense attorney made reference to the fact that another set of scans were conducted two weeks after the defendant’s scan. At that point, the plaintiff attorney requested to approach the bench and off-record discussion was held. The defense said his case was “gutted” if he couldn’t mention the other scans, but the trial judge reiterated his earlier stance.

Then later in the trial, the defense admitted evidence pertaining to the later scan. The plaintiff attorney reminded the court that a redaction would need to be done. However, as it was later revealed, the evidence was not properly redacted before it went to the jury.

During deliberations, the jury submitted a question regarding that later test – the one they weren’t supposed to know anything about. The judge responded to the jury by saying that all relevant evidence had been given to the jury. The jury found in favor of the defendant doctors.

It wasn’t until the plaintiff attorney reviewed the action copies of what was sent to the jury room that she learned the documents had not been properly redacted and the jury had considered evidence that they should not have been allowed to consider.

The plaintiff requested a near trial. Following a hearing, the court granted this request.

The defense appealed, but the state supreme court upheld the earlier ruling. It was determined that the unredacted documents were considered prejudicial to the plaintiff and they were barred by the pretrial motion.

While not every misconduct or oversight requires a new trial, some inevitably do. In this case, the patient’s loved ones will get another chance to pursue justice.

Burton A. Padove handles personal injury matters throughout northern Indiana, including Gary, Hammond and Calumet City.

Additional Resources: Mottershaw v. Ledbetter, Jan. 17, 2014, Alabama Supreme Court More Blog Entries: Indiana Traffic Safety: Don’t Take That Cruise Control for Granted, Nov. 20, 2013, Highland Injury Lawyer Blog

There are statutes of limitations on the lawsuit, but there are also numerous deadlines for various filings that must be met before a claim can move forward.

Patients first have to file a complaint with the Indiana Department of Insurance, which will appoint a medical review panel of three physicians to evaluate the case. If there is one defendant, two of the three doctors must be from the defendant’s specialty. If there are multiple defendants, the department must try to make sure the panel displays the most appropriate representation possible. more If the panel gives the green light to a case, the patient can choose to proceed to court. While the panel’s findings aren’t conclusive, those findings are admissible in the court case and the members can even be called later as expert witnesses.

Once the patient has the panel’s approval, he or she can file a medical malpractice lawsuit, based on the guidelines set forth in the Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure. There is the initial pleading, filed by the plaintiff, which is designed to provide notice to the defendant of the claim.

Complaints must be accompanied by a summons and a cover sheet. It has to include jurisdictional facts, background on the case, elements of the cause of actions, damage allegations, prayer for relief and the signature of the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney.

In medical malpractice cases, patients have up to two years from the date of the alleged malpractice to file. Some exceptions are made for minors and those who could not have reasonably discovered the malpractice within that time frame.

Following each of these requirements to the letter is critical to the success of your case. Failure to consider every detail could result in the dismissal of your case before it is ever heard by a jury.

That’s what nearly happened in the case of Cannon ex rel. Good v. Reddy, reviewed recently by the Tennessee Supreme Court.

The case started back in 2005 when the patient underwent surgery to have her gallbladder removed. At the start of the procedure, the patient suffered a severe drop in blood pressure and oxygen saturation. Doctors were able to stabilize her, but not before the deprivation of oxygen caused her permanent brain damage.

A close relative was named a conservator, and that person filed a medical malpractice lawsuit on her behalf, naming the county, the regional hospital and the anesthesiologist as defendants. While this action was pending, the state legislature amended a section of its medical malpractice law to require plaintiffs to give written notice of the potential claim to each defendant a full two months prior to filing the complaint. Plaintiffs were additionally required to file a certificate of good faith alongside that complaint in any medical malpractice action that would require expert testimony (which is just about all of them). Where proper notice is given, the law was changed to say that the statute of limitations on claims would be extended for 120 days.

Subsequently, the plaintiff in this case voluntarily dismissed her action, following it with a presuit notice of potential claim to the defendants. The lawsuit was then re-filed against the previously-named defendants.

The plaintiff then made a third filing, which was later consolidated with the second, with the trial court noting her attempt to preserve the claim by filing actions that complied with both the old and new statutes. There was question as to whether the second filing met the legal criteria necessary to move forward.

The defendants moved to dismiss the second claim for failure to comply with pre-suit notice and certificate of good faith requirements and the third action on the basis of the doctrine of prior suit pending.

The plaintiff then voluntarily dismissed her second action.

The trial court reserved its ruling on the doctor’s motion to dismiss. Later, it denied his motion to reconsider on the basis that it was untimely.

The doctor appealed that finding. The court of appeals declined the review, but the state supreme court accepted.

The high court found that the plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal of the second action made the doctor’s argument of prior suit pending (a preclusion of the third action) a moot point.

From there, the question became whether the third action was filed outside of the appropriate statute of limitations. The court determined that on the basis of recent case law, the plaintiff in this case was entitled to the 120-day extension and was therefore within the statutory period.

This means she is free to pursue her medical malpractice claim.

Burton A. Padove handles personal injury matters throughout northern Indiana, including Gary, Hammond and Saint John.

Additional Resources: Cannon ex rel. Good v. Reddy, Jan. 29, 2014, Tennessee Supreme Court More Blog Entries: Indiana Tort Claims Act Mandates Timely Notice To Sue, Dec. 20, 2013, Munster Medical Malpractice Lawyer Blog