Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 39A01-1509-CT-1498 | June 29, 2016 Page 1 of 13

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT

Christopher L. Riegler

Kimberly E. Schroder

Hall, Render, Killian,

Heath & Lyman, P.C.

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE

Martin H. Kinney Jr.

Dolt, Thompson, Shepherd & 

Kinney, PSC

Louisville, Kentucky

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Anonymous M.D. and 

Anonymous Hospital,

Appellants-Petitioners,

v.

Kenneth Lockridge, on behalf of 

Lily Lockridge, Rose Lockridge, 

and Kenneth Lockridge, Jr., 

Minors,

Appellees-Respondents,

 and

Commissioner of Indiana 

Department of Insurance,

Non-Moving Respondents

June 29, 2016

Court of Appeals Case No.

39A01-1509-CT-1498

Appeal from the Jefferson Circuit 

Court

The Honorable Darrell M. Auxier, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

39C01-1412-CT-982
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 39A01-1509-CT-1498 | June 29, 2016 Page 2 of 13

Baker, Judge.

[1] Traci Leach died from lung cancer after a radiologist failed to diagnose a tumor 

on a CT scan. After Leach’s death, multiple medical malpractice claims were 

filed, including a claim filed by three of her young children. The trial court 

dismissed all of the claims except for the children’s because the claims were 

untimely filed. But it found that because the children were under the age of six 

at the time of the alleged negligence and under the age of eight at the time of the 

filing of the complaint, their claims were not time-barred. Given the plain 

language of the statutes at issue, we find that the trial court did not err by 

finding that the children’s claims were not time-barred.

[2] Anonymous M.D. (the Doctor) and Anonymous Hospital (the Hospital) 

(collectively, the Appellants) bring this interlocutory appeal of the trial court’s 

order partially denying their summary judgment motion. The Appellants argue 

that the two-year statute of limitations applies to the claims of Traci’s children 

and that the trial court erred by denying summary judgment on those claims. 

We affirm and remand for further proceedings.

Facts1

[3] On July 6, 2011, Traci Leach underwent a CT scan at the Hospital. The CT 

scan was later interpreted by the Doctor, who failed to identify a lung tumor 

 

1 We held oral argument in Indianapolis on June 14, 2016. We thank counsel for both parties for their 

outstanding written and oral presentations.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 39A01-1509-CT-1498 | June 29, 2016 Page 3 of 13

that was allegedly present and diagnosable on the CT scan. Traci learned on 

August 30, 2012, that she had lung cancer, and she died on July 17, 2014.

[4] Traci and Kenneth Lockridge had three children together: Lily, Rose, and 

Kenneth Jr. (the Children). Leach also had two other children, Dustin and 

Ashley Leach. On August 27, 2014, the Children, Dustin and Ashley Leach, 

and Traci’s Estate filed a complaint with the Indiana Department of Insurance, 

alleging that the Appellants had acted negligently and that the negligence 

resulted in Traci’s death. Kenneth alleges that in July 2011, the Children were 

under the age of six and that at the time the complaint was filed, they were 

under the age of eight.2 

[5] On December 12, 2014, the Appellants filed a motion for summary judgment in 

the trial court, arguing that they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law 

because the complaint was not timely filed. On July 20, 2015, the trial court 

issued an order granting summary judgment with respect to the claims of the 

Estate, Dustin, and Ashley. It denied summary judgment with respect to the 

Children. In pertinent part, the trial court found as follows:

Findings of Fact

***

 

2 There is no evidence in the record establishing the ages of the Children. While there was evidence 

regarding their ages contained within the Children’s response to the Appellants’ summary judgment motion, 

the trial court struck that response and evidence attached thereto from the record because it was untimely 

filed. We will address the issue of the Children’s ages below. It is undisputed that Dustin and Ashley were 

over the age of six in July 2011 and over the age of eight when the complaint was filed.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 39A01-1509-CT-1498 | June 29, 2016 Page 4 of 13

4. Traci Leach became aware of the alleged malpractice and 

resulting injury over ten months before the two year 

limitation period prescribed by the Medical Malpractice 

Act (“MMA”) expired.

***

9. Three of Leach’s children . . . were less than six years of 

age in July of 2011. Her remaining children, Dustin Leach 

and Ashley Leach, were more than six years of age in July 

of 2011. [fn 1]

[fn1] The Court has . . . stricken the . . . sole source 

of information regarding the ages of the 

children. The Court assumes that there is no 

material issue of fact as to the ages of the 

children and that their ages are as found by 

the Court. . . . Without knowledge of the 

children’s ages, the Court would be 

compelled to deny Petitioner’s motion as to 

all the children. . . .

***

Conclusions of Law

***

4. . . . Leach had ample time to file her action between the 

date of her discovery (August 30, 2012) and the date of the 

running of the occurrence based statute of limitations (July 

8, 2013). Her failure to do so barrs [sic] her Estate from 

pursuing its claim.

5. . . . The children’s claims are derivative claims. . . . 

Persons having derivative claims are patients within the 

meaning of Indiana Code 34-18-2-22. . . .

***
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 39A01-1509-CT-1498 | June 29, 2016 Page 5 of 13

7. The fact that their mother’s underlying claim is time 

barred does not prevent the Leach children from pursuing 

a derivative claim. A derivative claim may be maintained 

even if the underlying claim would be time barred.

***

12. Indiana Code 34-18-7-1, the MMA statute of limitations, 

provides that a medical malpractice claim is barred unless 

it is filed within two years after the date of the alleged 

malpractice, except that a minor less than six years of age 

has until the minor’s eighth birthday to file.

13. The claims of Dustin Leach and Ashley Leach are timebarred as they were not filed within 2 years of the date of 

occurrence . . . .

14. [The Children] were less than six years of age on the date 

of the occurrence of the alleged malpractice. Pursuant to 

Indiana Code 34-18-7-1 they had until their eighth 

birthdays to timely file their claims. Their claims were, 

therefore, timely filed and are not barred by the MMA 

statute of limitations.

Appellants’ App. p. 58-64 (internal citations omitted). The Appellants now 

bring this interlocutory appeal of the denial of their summary judgment motion 

with respect to the Children.

Discussion and Decision

I. Standard of Review

[6] Our standard of review on summary judgment is well settled:

We review summary judgment de novo, applying the same 

standard as the trial court: “Drawing all reasonable inferences in 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 39A01-1509-CT-1498 | June 29, 2016 Page 6 of 13

favor of . . . the non-moving parties, summary judgment is 

appropriate ‘if the designated evidentiary matter shows that there 

is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving 

party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’” Williams v. 

Tharp, 914 N.E.2d 756, 761 (Ind. 2009) (quoting T.R. 56(C)). “A 

fact is ‘material’ if its resolution would affect the outcome of the 

case, and an issue is ‘genuine’ if a trier of fact is required to 

resolve the parties’ differing accounts of the truth, or if the 

undisputed material facts support conflicting reasonable 

inferences.” Id. (internal citations omitted).

Hughley v. State, 15 N.E.3d 1000, 1003 (Ind. 2014). To the extent that the 

resolution of this case turns on an issue of statutory interpretation, we apply a 

de novo standard of review. Meyer v. Beta Tau House Corp., 31 N.E.3d 501, 513 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2015).

II. Statute of Limitations

[7] The Appellants contend that the Children’s negligence claim is barred by the 

relevant statute of limitations and that, as a result, summary judgment should 

be granted in favor of the Appellants. A medical malpractice defendant who 

asserts the statute of limitations as a defense bears the burden of establishing 

that the action was commenced beyond the statutory period. Boggs v. Tri-State 

Radiology, Inc., 730 N.E.2d 692, 695 (Ind. 2000). Once the defendant meets that 

burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to establish “an issue of fact material to 

a theory that avoids the defense.” Id. Failure to file a proposed medical 

malpractice complaint within the statute of limitations is generally fatal to that 

claim. McGill v. Ling, 801 N.E.2d 678, 682 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 39A01-1509-CT-1498 | June 29, 2016 Page 7 of 13

[8] Indiana Code section 34-18-7-1(b) provides as follows:

A claim, whether in contract or tort, may not be brought against 

a health care provider based upon professional services or health 

care that was provided or that should have been provided unless 

the claim is filed within two (2) years after the date of the alleged 

act, omission, or neglect, except that a minor less than six (6) 

years of age has until the minor’s eighth birthday to file.

The parties disagree about a number of things with respect to this statute of 

limitations: (1) the date on which it began to run; (2) whether an exception 

applies; and (3) whether the Children’s derivative claim can survive after the 

underlying claim was dismissed as untimely.

[9] At the outset, we note that the parties also disagree about whether the 

Children’s ages have been established such that the tolling provision even 

arguably applies. It is true that the Children’s summary judgment response, 

which contained the only evidence establishing their ages, was struck as 

untimely. The trial court noted in its order that there was no material dispute 

regarding the Children’s ages but explicitly stated that if the ages in the order 

were incorrect, a motion to correct error to that effect could be filed. 

Appellant’s App. p. 60 n.1. The Appellants filed a motion to correct error and 

raised the Children’s ages as an issue therein, but they merely argued that there 

was insufficient evidence supporting the ages—not that the ages were incorrect. 

It is apparent that there is no genuine dispute regarding the Children’s ages, and 

we decline to resolve this case on such a narrow, technical basis. We turn, 

therefore, to the parties’ substantive arguments.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 39A01-1509-CT-1498 | June 29, 2016 Page 8 of 13

A. When Did the Limitations Period Begin to Run?

[10] Here, the parties debate about whether the two-year statute of limitations began 

to run on the date of the alleged negligence or on the date of Traci’s death. Our 

Supreme Court has already answered this question. If the patient’s death was 

caused by the malpractice, then the “claim must be filed within two years of the 

occurrence of the malpractice.” Ellenwine v. Fairley, 846 N.E.2d 657, 665 (Ind. 

2006). The Ellenwine Court reached this result by examining the purposes of the 

MMA:

One of the principal legislative purposes behind the MMA in 

general and the two-year occurrence-based statute of limitations 

in particular was to foster prompt litigation of medical 

malpractice claims. Because a patient who has been the victim of 

medical negligence could well live many more than two years 

beyond the occurrence of the malpractice only to ultimately die 

as a result of it, applying the two-years-after-death limitations 

period of the wrongful death statute where a patient dies from the 

malpractice seems to us totally inconsistent with this legislative 

goal.

Id. at 664. In the case at hand, therefore, the occurrence-based two-year statute 

of limitations contained within the MMA applies notwithstanding the fact that 

Traci died as a result of the alleged negligence. In other words, the two-year 

limitations period began to run on July 6, 2011, the date on which the alleged 

negligence occurred, and had lapsed by the time the parties filed their complaint 

on August 27, 2014, unless an exception applies.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 39A01-1509-CT-1498 | June 29, 2016 Page 9 of 13

B. Does an Exception Apply?

[11] There may be instances in which discovery of alleged malpractice after the 

alleged malpractice occurs extends the statute of limitations. Our Supreme 

Court has provided a framework in which to evaluate this situation. First, a 

court must determine the date on which the alleged malpractice occurred, and 

second, it must determine the “trigger date,” which occurs when the claimant 

has sufficient information that a reasonably diligent person would have 

discovered the alleged malpractice. Booth v. Wiley, 839 N.E.2d 1168, 1172 (Ind. 

2005). 

[12] If the trigger date occurs more than two years beyond the date of the 

malpractice, then the claimant has two years after discovery to initiate the 

claim. Id. at 1169. But if the trigger date is within the two years following the 

malpractice, the action must be initiated within the two-year limitation “unless 

it is not reasonably possible for the claimant to present a claim in the time 

remaining after discovery and before the end of the statutory period.” Id. at 

1172. 

[13] If the claimant has insufficient time to file, the claim must be initiated “within a 

reasonable time” following discovery. Id. So long as the time remaining is not 

so short “that it is impractical for a plaintiff to file a claim at all,” the two-year 

statute of limitations applies. Boggs v. Tri-State Radiology, Inc., 730 N.E.2d 692, 

697-98 (Ind. 2000). Courts of this State have found that time periods ranging 

from four to eleven months were sufficient for a medical malpractice claim to 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 39A01-1509-CT-1498 | June 29, 2016 Page 10 of 13

be filed. See Herron v. Anigbo, 897 N.E.2d 444, 453 (Ind. 2008) (four months);

Overton v. Grillo, 896 N.E.2d 499, 504 (Ind. 2008) (nine months); Boggs, 730 

N.E.2d at 699 (eleven months). 

[14] In this case, the alleged negligence occurred on July 6, 2011, meaning that the 

two-year statute of limitations expired on July 6, 2013. The Appellants argue 

that the trigger date in this case is August 30, 2012, when Traci learned that she 

had lung cancer. We agree. If that is the trigger date, then the two-year statute 

of limitations applies and Traci had ten remaining months in which to file her 

claim. We also agree that ten months is a sufficient time in which to file and 

that, consequently, no discovery-based exception to the two-year period should 

apply. That said, the Children may still be entitled to pursue their claim based 

on the tolling provision in the statute.

C. The Tolling Provision

[15] As noted above, the relevant MMA statute provides that “[a] claim” sounding 

in medical malpractice must be filed within two years of the alleged negligence, 

“except that a minor less than six (6) years of age has until the minor’s eighth 

birthday to file.” I.C. § 34-18-7-1(b). The central question presented by this 

case—whether the minor included in this statute must be the party injured by 

the alleged negligence or, instead, may be a non-injured party bringing a 

derivative claim—is an issue of first impression. 

[16] The statute applies to a claim based upon “health care” provided by a 

healthcare provider. I.C. § 34-18-7-1(b). “Health care” is defined as “an act or 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 39A01-1509-CT-1498 | June 29, 2016 Page 11 of 13

treatment performed or furnished, or that should have been performed or 

furnished, by a health care provider for, to, or on behalf of a patient during the 

patient’s medical care, treatment, or confinement.” I.C. § 34-18-2-13 (emphasis 

added). “Patient,” in turn, is defined as follows:

an individual who receives or should have received health care 

from a health care provider, under a contract, express or implied, 

and includes a person having a claim of any kind, whether derivative or 

otherwise, as a result of alleged malpractice on the part of a health 

care provider. Derivative claims include the claim of a parent or 

parents, guardian, trustee, child, relative, attorney, or any other 

representative of the patient including claims for loss of services, 

loss of consortium, expenses, and other similar claims.

I.C. § 34-18-2-22 (emphases added). The plain language of this statute includes 

derivative claimants as “patients,” and includes the claims of children as 

derivative claims. Our legislature could have drafted the definition of patients 

to exclude derivative claimants, but it elected not to do so. We are bound by 

the language it selected, which clearly includes derivative claimants as patients. 

[17] The portion of the statute that tolls the two-year limitations period likewise 

contains no limitation excluding derivative claimants. Instead, it merely says 

that the two-year limitations period applies “except that a minor less than six 

(6) years of age has until the minor’s eighth birthday to file.” I.C. § 34-18-7-

1(b). Here, again, the General Assembly could have provided that the “minor” 

included within the tolling provision must be the person who underwent the 

allegedly negligent medical treatment. It did not do so. Given that the statute 

applies to “health care” negligence claims, that “health care” is provided to 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 39A01-1509-CT-1498 | June 29, 2016 Page 12 of 13

“patients,” that “patients” explicitly includes derivative claimants, and that 

there is no further limitation of these terms, we can only conclude that the 

tolling provision applies to children whether they are bringing direct or 

derivative medical malpractice claims. Therefore, we decline to reverse the trial 

court on this basis.

[18] The Appellants argue that even if the tolling provision would apply to 

derivative claims brought by children, in this case it does not save their claim 

because the underlying claim was dismissed as untimely. They direct our 

attention to Ellenwine, in which our Supreme Court held that when an adult 

patient is the victim of medical negligence and dies as a result of the negligence, 

a derivative action for consortium under a wrongful death claim must be filed 

within the MMA’s two-year limitations period rather than under the limitations 

period provided by the statutory scheme governing wrongful death actions. 846 

N.E.2d at 664. In other words, if the underlying claim is time-barred, so must 

be the claim that derives from it. To hold otherwise would be to make an endrun around the purposes of the MMA—to “foster prompt litigation of medical 

malpractice claims.” Id.

[19] We acknowledge the wisdom of the Ellenwine holding but find that it does not 

apply to child claimants who fall under the tolling provision. The General 

Assembly has carved out an explicit exception to the two-year statute of 

limitations for children in a limited and specific age range. We have already 

held that those children may be either direct or derivative claimants. It would 

render the tolling provision meaningless as to children who are derivative 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 39A01-1509-CT-1498 | June 29, 2016 Page 13 of 13

claimants to say that they are nonetheless bound by the two-year limitations 

period governing all other claims. It is well established that we may not 

interpret one provision of a statute in a way that renders other provisions of the 

statute meaningless. E.g., Henderson v. Coutee, 829 N.E.2d 1028, 1030 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2005). Given that our legislature has decided to treat children under the 

age of eight in a special way for the purpose of the medical malpractice 

limitations period and has not limited the special treatment to direct claimants, 

we find that the tolling provision must apply whether the children are derivative 

or direct claimants. Consequently, the trial court did not err by determining 

that the Children in this case were not time-barred because of the two-year 

statute of limitations period governing the underlying claim from which their 

claim derives.

[20] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed and remanded for further 

proceedings.

May, J., and Brown, J., concur.