The Supreme Court of Indiana is hearing a case involving multiple appellants suing hospitals, physicians, and insurance commissioners as appellees. The case involves two medical malpractice claims that were filed in trial court without first submitting them to a medical review panel as required by the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act. The trial court dismissed the complaints and found the Act constitutional. The appellants challenged the constitutionality of the statute and sought a declaratory judgment. The case involves a claim for wrongful injury and loss of vision to the right eye due to the negligence of a physician and a claim for wrongful death due to the negligence of a physician and hospital. Evidence was presented during the trial for constitutional purposes that showed the conditions in the health care and insurance industries that led to the enactment of the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act. The Act aimed to address the underlying cause-and-effect relationship between malpractice claims and reduced healthcare services due to high costs and limited availability of malpractice insurance. The excessive sums were due to flawed processes for collecting and assessing evidence of negligent conduct, failure to identify and correct habitual negligence by healthcare providers, high attorney fees, and overly long time limitations for malpractice actions.
This case concerns the constitutionality of the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act and its controls and limitations on negligence claims against healthcare providers. The court presumes the validity of the Act, and the burden is on the party challenging it to prove its unconstitutionality. The requirement of submitting a malpractice claim to a panel for an opinion does not result in impermissible delay and expense in getting to a jury trial. The panel submission requirement impinges on the right to a jury trial, but it does not violate constitutional limitations or alter the substantial elements of the right for either party.
The Indiana Medical Malpractice Act requires a medical panel review before filing a malpractice lawsuit, and the recovery limitation of $500,000 is challenged but will be upheld if it is a proper exercise of the State's police power. The Act's limitations on recoveries, attorney fees, and time limitations for filing malpractice claims are constitutional and do not violate due process or equal protection. The Act's provision limiting legal disability for infants to those under six years of age is also constitutional. The law prohibiting including a dollar amount in malpractice complaints and the patient's compensation fund do not violate the Indiana Constitution. The judgment of the trial courts in the cases is affirmed.