Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A05-1411-CT-525 | May 26, 2015 Page 1 of 9

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this 

Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as 

precedent or cited before any court except for the 

purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, 

collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

APPELLANT PRO SE

Jason T. Myers

Plainfield, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES

David G. Field

Justin C. Wiler

Schultz & Pogue, LLP

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Jason T. Myers,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

Anonymous Medical Group

Anonymous Physician

Appellees-Plaintiffs

Steve Robertson, Executive

Director/Commissioner of 

Insurance, Indiana Department of 

Insurance,

Interested Party.

May 26, 2015

Court of Appeals Case No.

79A05-1411-CT-525

Appeal from the Tippecanoe Circuit 

Court

The Honorable Donald L. Daniel, 

Judge

Case No. 79C01-1307-CT-18

Vaidik, Chief Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A05-1411-CT-525 | May 26, 2015 Page 2 of 9

Case Summary

[1] Jason Myers’s father died in November 2010 following surgery. More than 

three years later, Myers filed a medical-malpractice action against the physician 

and a medical group and requested the appointment of counsel. The physician 

and the medical group sought summary judgment on the grounds that the son’s 

action was barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The trial court denied 

Myers’s request for appointment of counsel and granted summary judgment in 

favor of the physician and the medical group. Because this action was timebarred by the applicable statute of limitations, we affirm the trial court.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In October 2010, Dale Myers was admitted to Anonymous Hospital in 

Lafayette, Indiana, for surgical procedures necessitated by a persistent perianal 

fistula.1 Dale was well-known to physicians because he had already had 

approximately twenty surgical procedures for his chronic perianal fistulas. 

Anonymous Physician was the assistant surgeon on the case. Dale — whose

recovery was complicated by a fall, additional surgical procedures, and internal 

 

1 An anal fistula is “a small channel that develops between the end of the bowel, known as the anal canal, 

and the skin near the anus. The end of the fistula can appear as a hole in the skin around the anus.” 

http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/Anal-fistula/Pages/Introduction.aspx (last visited May 6, 2015).

 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A05-1411-CT-525 | May 26, 2015 Page 3 of 9

bleeding — died on November 4, 2010, which was also the last day the 

Anonymous Physician treated him.

[3] Jason Myers is Dale’s son. On November 7, 2010, Myers, who was

incarcerated at the Correctional Industrial Complex in Plainfield, was told by 

the prison chaplain that his father had died. Myers was allowed to telephone 

his brother, who told Myers that their father had died at Anonymous Hospital 

after his spleen ruptured and he bled to death following colon surgery. Myers, 

seeking to learn more about his father’s death, attempted to obtain a death 

certificate. However, Indiana Department of Correction policy prohibited him 

from obtaining one.

[4] In December 2011, one year after his father’s death, Myers contacted 

Anonymous Hospital in an attempt to obtain his father’s medical records. The 

Hospital advised Myers that his request was not on the proper form and sent 

him the correct one, which requested the last four digits of his father’s socialsecurity number. Myers, however, did not have this number so he did not 

pursue his request for the medical records.

[5] In September 2012, while Myers was in court on an unrelated matter, he was 

given his father’s death certificate. Myers was able to view his father’s causes of 

death, which were listed as: 1. cardiac arrest secondary to hypotension2; 2. 

 

2 Hypotension is abnormally low blood pressure. http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/healthtopics/topics/hyp (last visited May 6, 2015).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A05-1411-CT-525 | May 26, 2015 Page 4 of 9

hypotension and ischemia3 due to internal bleeding; and 3. internal bleeding at 

spleen. Appellant’s App. p. 117. Myers was also able to view his father’s 

social-security number and again attempted to obtain his father’s medical 

records from Anonymous Hospital. When Myers learned he would have to pay 

for the records, Myers did not pursue his request. 

[6] One month later, on October 31, 2012, Myers attempted to file his first 

proposed complaint with the Indiana Department of Insurance. The complaint 

named Anonymous Hospital as a defendant but did not name Anonymous 

Physician or Anonymous Medical Group. Myers did not include the filing fee 

with his proposed complaint and was subsequently granted a fee waiver. His

complaint was marked as filed by the Department of Insurance on February 6, 

2013.

[7] In March 2013, Myers filed an amended proposed complaint against 

Anonymous Hospital. The complaint did not name either Anonymous 

Physician or Anonymous Medical Group as defendants. On September 4,

2013, Myers requested the appointment of counsel, which the trial court denied. 

On October 4, Myers made a formal request for production of medical 

documents, which he received on February 14, 2014. 

 

3

Ischemia is the medical term for what happens when the heart muscle doesn't get enough oxygen. 

http://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/ischemia-topic-overview (last visited May 6, 2015).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A05-1411-CT-525 | May 26, 2015 Page 5 of 9

[8] Myers filed a second amended proposed complaint wherein he named 

Anonymous Physician as a defendant on February 21, 2014. Six months later, 

Anonymous Physician filed a petition for a preliminary determination of law 

and summary judgment based on the statute of limitations. Specifically, 

Anonymous Physician argued that Myers had failed to file his proposed 

complaint within two years of November 4, 2010, the patient’s date of death. 

On September 11, 2014, Myers filed both a third amended proposed complaint 

adding Anonymous Medical Group as a defendant as well as a response to 

Anonymous Physician’s summary-judgment motion. In Anonymous 

Physician’s reply to Myers’s response, Anonymous Physician stated that the 

arguments contained in his summary-judgment motion and reply applied

equally to Anonymous Medical Group.

[9] On October 8, 2014, the trial court issued an order granting summary judgment 

in favor of Anonymous Physician and Anonymous Medical Group. 

Specifically, the trial court concluded that Myers’s claims were barred by the 

statute of limitations. 

[10] Myers, pro se, now appeals. 

Discussion and Decision

[11] At the outset we note that Myers is proceeding pro se. Such litigants are held to 

the same standard as trained counsel. Evans v. State, 809 N.E.2d 338, 344 (Ind. 

Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A05-1411-CT-525 | May 26, 2015 Page 6 of 9

I. Statute of Limitations 

[12] Myers first argues that the trial court erred in concluding that his claim was 

barred by the statute of limitations and granting summary judgment in favor of 

Anonymous Physician and Anonymous Medical Group. When reviewing a 

grant of summary judgment, we apply the same standard as the trial court. 

Anonymous Physician v. Wininger, 998 N.E.2d 749, 751 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). 

Summary judgment is proper only when the designated evidence shows that 

there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to 

judgment as a matter of law. Id. All facts and reasonable inferences therefrom 

are construed in a light most favorable to the nonmovant. Id. 

[13] Statutes of limitations are favored in Indiana because they afford security 

against stale claims and promote the peace and welfare of society. Runkle v. 

Runkle, 916 N.E.2d 184, 191 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), trans. denied. They are 

enacted on the presumption that someone with a well-founded claim will not 

delay in enforcing it. Id. Further, the statute-of-limitations defense is 

particularly well suited as a basis for summary judgment. Id. When a movant 

asserts the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense and makes a prima 

facie showing that the action was untimely commenced, the nonmovant has the 

burden of establishing an issue of fact material to the theory that avoids the 

affirmative defense. Id. at 192. 

The Medical Malpractice Act’s statute of limitations is found in Indiana Code 

section 34-18-7-1(b), which provides that a claim against a health-care 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A05-1411-CT-525 | May 26, 2015 Page 7 of 9

professional based upon health care that was provided or should have been 

provided, must be filed within two years of the alleged act, omission, or neglect. 

This is an occurrence-based statute of limitations, which means that an action 

for medical malpractice generally must be filed within two years from the date 

the alleged negligent act occurred rather from the date it was discovered. Houser 

v. Kaufman, 972 N.E.2d 927, 933 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), trans. denied. However, 

if the claimant does not discover the alleged malpractice and resulting injury, 

and does not possess the information that would lead a reasonably diligent 

person to such discovery during the two-year period, the occurrence-based 

limitation period is unconstitutional as applied. Garneau v. Bush, 838 N.E.2d 

1134, 1141 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied. In such cases, it must be 

determined when the claimant possessed enough information that, in the 

exercise of reasonable diligence, should have led to the discovery of the alleged 

malpractice and resulting injury. Id. Reasonable diligence requires a claimant

“to inquire into the possibility of a claim within the remaining limitations 

period, and to institute a claim within that period or forego it.” Herron v. 

Anigbo, 897 N.E.2d 444, 459 (Ind. 2008), reh’g denied.

[14] Here, the last alleged negligent act occurred on November 4, 2010, the date the 

patient died. However, Myers did not file his complaint against Anonymous 

Physician until February 21, 2014, or against Anonymous Medical Group until 

September 11, 2014. Both dates are clearly outside the statute-of-limitations

period. Myers, however, argues that the “earliest [he] could’ve discovered facts 

to learn of the malpractice and resulting injury would’ve been after receipt of 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A05-1411-CT-525 | May 26, 2015 Page 8 of 9

the September 28, 2012, delivered death certificate, which [his] February 21, 

2014, Second Amended Complaint was well within two years of.” Appellant’s 

Br. p. 9.

[15] Although Myers claims that he did not discover the alleged malpractice until he 

received his father’s death certificate in September 2012, our review of the 

evidence reveals that on November 10, 2010, three days after their father’s 

death, Myers’s brother gave him the very information contained in the death 

certificate. Specifically, Myers’s brother told him that their father died at 

Anonymous Hospital after his spleen ruptured and he bled to death following 

colon surgery. Although he possessed this information that alerted him to the 

alleged malpractice and resulting injury, Myers waited thirteen months, until 

December 14, 2011, before contacting the hospital and requesting his father’s 

medical records. After the hospital told Myers that his request was not on the 

proper form and sent him the correct one, which requested the last four digits of 

his father’s social-security number, Myers delayed almost another year, until 

September 2012, before he again attempted to obtain his father’s medical 

records from Anonymous Hospital. Myers did not exercise reasonable 

diligence in pursuing his claim, and the trial court did not err in concluding that 

his claim was barred by the statute of limitations and granting summary 

judgment in favor of Anonymous Physician and Anonymous Medical Group.4

 

4

 To the extent Myers asks us to toll the statute of limitations to accommodate his incarceration, we deny his 

request. The Indiana Supreme Court addressed a similar request in Boggs v. Tri-State Radiology, Inc., 730 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A05-1411-CT-525 | May 26, 2015 Page 9 of 9

II. Appointment of Counsel

[16] Myers also argues that the trial court erred in denying his request for the

appointment of counsel. Pursuant to Indiana Code section 34-10-1-2(b)(2), if a 

person does not have sufficient means to prosecute or defend an action, the 

court “may, under exceptional circumstances, assign an attorney to defend or 

prosecute the case.” However, the court shall deny a request for an attorney if 

the person making the request is unlikely to prevail on his claim. Ind. Code § 

34-10-1-2(d).

[17] Here, our review of the evidence reveals that the statute of limitations began to 

run in November 2010. Myers did not file his request for appointment of 

counsel until almost three years later in September 2013. By that time, the 

statute of limitations had run out on his claim, and he was therefore unlikely to 

prevail on it. Under these circumstances, the trial court did not err in denying 

Myers’s request for appointment of counsel.

[18] Affirmed. 

Kirsch, J., and Bradford, J., concur.

 

N.E.2d 692 (Ind. 2000), where Boggs argued that the statute of limitations operated as a practical bar by 

forcing medical-malpractice victims who suffer from terminal conditions to commence litigation and 

simultaneously battle for their lives. However, the Supreme Court concluded that although Boggs’s point 

had some force, nothing prevented him or his deceased wife from initiating litigation within the statutory 

period or attempting to secure a waiver of the limitations period. Id. at 696. Rather, the Supreme Court 

pointed out that the legislature chose the benefits of certainty over the burdens that may be imposed and that 

such a scheme raised no inherent bar to a remedy and left the courts open to entertain the claim. Id.

Similarly, in this case, nothing prevented Myers from initiating litigation within the statutory period.