Opinion ID: 2228331
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Applicability of the Medical Malpractice Statute

Text: Both parties assume that the applicable statute of limitations in this case is the medical malpractice statute of limitations, § 34-18-7-1(b). [4] While their assumption is correct, for the sake of clarity, we explain briefly why this is so. The legislature enacted § 34-18-7-1(b) as a part of the Medical Malpractice Act of 1975 (Act), [5] which was designed to further the legislative goal of controlling malpractice costs by encouraging the prompt presentation of claims and, in so doing, limiting unfair exposure to defending health care providers that stems from dimmed memories or the loss of evidence over time. See Rohrabaugh v. Wagoner, 274 Ind. 661, 413 N.E.2d 891, 894-95 (1980). That Act defines malpractice as a tort or breach of contract based on health care or professional services that were provided, or that should have been provided, by a health care provider, to a patient. Ind.Code § 34-18-2-18 (1998) (emphasis added). A health care provider is defined to include [a]n individual, a partnership, a limited liability company, a corporation, a professional corporation, a facility or an institution licensed or legally authorized by this state to provide health care or professional services as a physician... [or] dentist.... Ind.Code § 34-18-2-14(1) (1998). Given the goal of the Act, it is appropriate to construe the terms based on health care or professional services, as used both in § 34-18-7-1(b) and § 34-18-2-18, to include the asserted negligent insertion of a dental implant device as well as the failure to inform plaintiff of risks prior to surgery or to warn her after her surgery of the safety issues which the manufacturer and the FDA raised, as alleged in the complaint in this case. If this is so, then the period of limitations set forth in § 34-18-7-1(b), which has been construed as a statute that runs from the occurrence of the malpractice, [6] rather than the more generous discovery-based period of limitations applicable to other tort [7] or product liability cases, [8] applies here. See St. Mary Medical Center, Inc. v. Casko, 639 N.E.2d 312, 315 (Ind.1994). Therefore, the parties correctly assumed that § 34-18-7-1(b) applies to plaintiff's claims.