Case Title: McKeen v. Turner

Citation: 

Docket Number: 53S05-1704-CT-202

State: indiana

Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Date: 2017-04-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT 
Michael E. O’Neill 
Nathan D. Hansen 
O’Neill McFadden & Willett LLP 
Schererville, Indiana 
 
ATTORNEYS FOR AMICUS CURIAE 
DEFENSE TRIAL COUNSEL OF INDIANA 
Donald B. Kite, Sr. 
Wuertz Law Office, LLC 
Indianapolis, Indiana 
 
Crystal G. Rowe 
Kightlinger & Gray, LLP 
New Albany, Indiana 
 
ATTORNEYS FOR AMICUS CURIAE 
STEPHEN W. ROBERTSON, COMMISSIONER  
OF THE INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE  
AND ADMINISTRATOR OF THE INDIANA 
PATIENT’S COMPENSATION FUND 
Matthew W. Conner 
Bryan H. Babb 
Bose McKinney & Evans LLP 
Indianapolis, Indiana 
 
Wade D. Fulford 
Indiana Department of Insurance 
Indianapolis, Indiana 
 
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE 
James H. Young  
Young & Young 
Indianapolis, Indiana 
 
ATTORNEY FOR AMICUS CURIAE 
INDIANA TRIAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION 
Jerry Garau 
Garau Germano, P.C. 
Indianapolis, Indiana 
 
 
 
______________________________________________________________________________ 
 
In the 
Indiana Supreme Court  
_________________________________ 
 
No. 53S05-1704-CT-202 
 
CHARLES MCKEEN, M.D., 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Appellant (Defendant below), 
 
v. 
 
BILLY TURNER 
, 
 
 
 
 
Appellee (Plaintiff below). 
_________________________________ 
 
Appeal from the Monroe Circuit Court, No. 53C06-1201-CT-000088  
The Honorable Frances G. Hill, Judge  
_________________________________ 
 
FILED
C L E R K
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
Apr 07 2017, 3:20 pm
 
 
 
On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 53A05-1511-CT-02047 
 
_________________________________ 
 
April 7, 2017 
 
Per Curiam. 
Billy Turner filed a proposed malpractice complaint with the Indiana Department of 
Insurance pursuant to the Medical Malpractice Act, alleging Doctor Charles McKeen’s medical 
and surgical treatment of Turner’s wife, Rowena, failed to meet the appropriate standard of care.  
In addition to the complaint, Turner’s submission to the Medical Review Panel (“MRP”) 
included Rowena’s medical records and a narrative statement describing the records and alleging 
the delay in exploratory surgery following Rowena’s readmission to the hospital resulted in her 
death.  (Appellant's App. pp. 74, 86.)  The MRP issued a unanimous opinion finding the 
evidence did not support a conclusion that Dr. McKeen had failed to meet the applicable 
standard of care. 
Turner then filed a complaint in court.  After extensive discovery, Turner filed a 
supplemental witness list naming an expert hematologist who was expected to testify that Dr. 
McKeen had failed to prescribe the appropriate dosage of anticoagulation medication, leading to 
Rowena’s death.  Dr. McKeen filed a motion to strike the hematologist’s opinion on grounds 
Turner’s submission to the MRP did not allege malpractice relating to the anticoagulation 
medication, and so Turner could not pursue the claim in court.  The trial court denied Dr. 
McKeen’s motion, and this interlocutory appeal followed.   
Before a plaintiff may pursue a malpractice complaint in court against a qualified 
healthcare provider, the Medical Malpractice Act requires the plaintiff to present a proposed 
complaint to a MRP, and the MRP must give its opinion as to whether the provider breached the 
 
 
standard of care.1  See Ind. Code § 34-18-8-4.  Dr. McKeen contends Turner is attempting to 
raise a new claim in the trial court that he did not present to the MRP, in violation of the statute.  
The Court of Appeals disagreed in an opinion authored by Judge Baker, holding “a 
plaintiff may raise any theories of alleged malpractice during litigation following the MRP 
process if (1) the proposed complaint encompasses the theories, and (2) the evidence relating to 
those theories was before the MRP.”  McKeen v. Turner, 61 N.E.3d 1251, 1262 (Ind. Ct. App. 
2016).  The Court of Appeals concluded Turner met these requirements and may pursue in court 
his claim related to the anticoagulation medication.  
We agree with the Court of Appeals, finding its opinion consistent with Miller v. 
Memorial Hospital of South Bend, Inc., 679 N.E.2d 1329 (Ind. 1997).  We thus grant transfer 
and adopt and incorporate by reference the Court of Appeals opinion.  See Ind. Appellate Rule 
58(A)(1).  We further find K.D. v. Chambers, 951 N.E.2d 855 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), is at odds 
with Miller on the issue we address today and expressly disapprove K.D. 
   
All Justices concur. 
                                                 
1 None of the limited exceptions to this general rule apply here.