Anonymous Physician, et al v. Kendra


A deceased patient of cardiologist/cardiology group claimed alleged malpractice. Summary judgment on the statute of limitations was sought by the defendants. The claimant argued tolling of the statute of limitations.


The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's denial of summary judgment and granted the cardiologist's and group's Motion for Summary Judgment.The Indiana Supreme Court denied transfer on March 8, 2019.

Eichhorn & Eichhorn, LLP’s clients were an Indiana cardiologist and an Indiana cardiology group who were sued by the personal representative of a deceased patient. The claimant alleged medical malpractice on the part of the cardiologist and cardiology group for a variety of reasons, but primarily on the basis that each patient supposedly had received an unnecessary implanted cardiac device. Summary judgment was sought because the claim was untimely filed due to the expiration of the applicable limitations period. The claimant argued tolling on the basis that the “occurrence”-based statute of limitations specific to the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act was “unconstitutional as applied.” In support of her opposition, the claimant relied upon both expert opinion and family member testimony to contend that the device was unnecessary, the patient had been misled as to the need for the respective device and that neither the patient nor his family members had reason to suspect malpractice.

The trial court in Kendra denied summary judgment and denied the cardiologist's and group's motion to strike the evidence designated by the claimant. In this appeal, however, the Indiana Court of Appeals held in all respects for the cardiologists and the group. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's ruling and granted the cardiologist's and group’s Motion For Summary Judgment. Applying the correct standard for the applicable limitations period and tolling theory, the Court of Appeals held that the patient and the claimant had sufficient knowledge of facts to trigger an obligation to make further inquiry about the possibility of malpractice - neither the patient nor the claimant actually had to suspect or have reason to suspect malpractice. 

David C. Jensen


(219) 931-0560

Robert J. Feldt



Download vCard

Let Us Know How We Can Serve You