Court Opinion

ID: 9524722
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:56:31.816981+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:11:39.837765
License: Public Domain

SULLIVAN, Judge,
concurring.
The physician-patient relationship with regard to the condition resulting in the alleged act of malpractice, i.e., prescribing the steroids without adequate warning or monitoring, ended June 17, 1988. This was the last day of the time period during which the steroids were to be taken under the prescription filled on June 11,1988. A new and different physician-patient relationship was created on June 19, 1989 and continued until July 31, 1989 with regard to the unrelated chest pains reported by Rosolik. In my estimation, therefore, the statute of limitations expired June 16,1990, rather than July 30,1991. Be that as it may, the proposed complaint was not filed with the Department of Insurance *455until August 5, 1991,5 after the expiration of both periods. No matter which period is utilized for statute of limitations purposes, ,, ... i.» -i the complamt was not timely.

. The statute of limitations is effectively tolled by the filing of a proposed complamt with the Department of Insurance. Miller v. Terre Haute Regional Hosp. (1992) Ind., 603 N.E.2d 861, and if the defendant is a qualified health care provider under the Medical Malpractice Act, such filing satisfies the statute of limitations. See Yarnell v. Hurley (1991) Ind.App., 572 N.E.2d 1312, trans. denied.