The applicable rule of law for this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Ps brought their claim for medical malpractice without submitting it to a medical review panel for an opinion as required by the Act. Ind. Code § 16-9.5-9-2. At issue in each of the cases is the constitutionality of aspects of the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act. Ind. Code §§ 16-9.5-1-1 through 16-9.5-10-5. In each case brought, the courts determined that the statute governed the claim, upheld the statute, and then dismissed their complaint upon motion of Hospital (Ds). Ps included a separate paragraph in their complaints seeking a declaratory judgment upon the constitutionality of the statute. Ps all appealed. These appeals were heretofore consolidated for opinion. The reason for the statute was that seven of the ten insurance companies writing the majority of medical malpractice insurance policies in the State ceased or limited writing such insurance because of unprofitability or an inability to calculate an adequate premium. Premiums had already increased as much as 1200 percent over a period of fifteen years because of the increase in the number and size of claims. Physicians practicing high risk specialties, such as anesthesiology, were hard-pressed or totally unable to purchase insurance coverage. In some rural areas, surgery was reported cancelled. Emergency services were discontinued at some hospitals. Health care providers had become fearful of the exposure to malpractice claims, and at the same time were unable to obtain adequate malpractice insurance coverage at reasonable prices. The Legislature passed the Act in an effort to protect the public health and well-being of the community. The entire system was broken, from trial courts conducting deficient trials to health care providers who were negligent and were not being dealt with, along with massive fees charged by attorneys. The Act created voluntary state-sponsored liability insurance for doctors and other health care providers, created a patient compensation fund, took measures to prevent injuries to patients through the negligence of health care providers, and subjected negligence claims against health care providers to special controls limiting patient remedies. Ps claimed those special controls and limitations are inconsistent with the guarantees of the Indiana and Federal Constitutions. Features of the Act included submission of complaints to a Commissioner, for consideration by a medical review panel whose opinion is admissible at trial, recovery in malpractice cases is limited to $500,000, attorney fees are limited, and the limitations period is severely limited for malpractice actions, the limitations period is severely limited, and the Act creates a patient’s compensation fund. Ps’s main arguments are that the act is contrary to due process, equal protection, free speech, and separation of powers.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.