Court Opinion

ID: 9737433
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:24:58.922554+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:23:58.873695
License: Public Domain

*1286SHEPARD, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
I join with Justice Sullivan in adhering to the decision in Johnson v. St. Vincent Hospital, Inc., 273 Ind. 374, 404 N.E.2d 585 (1980). I gather that the majority does the same, and deems itself only to be deciding a new question: whether “the statute of limitations is unconstitutional as applied to the plaintiff in this case.” Op. at 1280.
The notion that the statute is unconstitutional only as applied to the plaintiff in this case necessarily means that it must be constitutional in some other cases. What cases could those be? The statute’s purpose is to adopt an event-based limit rather than a discovery-based limit. The Court says it is unconstitutional as to those who cannot promptly discover their injury. This seems like a facial unconstitutionality, a question we have already resolved.