Edward Niksich v. Dr. Malak Hermina (mem. dec.) ( 2016 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED
Aug 17 2016, 9:16 am
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this CLERK
Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
precedent or cited before any court except for the and Tax Court
purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata,
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
APPELLANT PRO SE ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES
Edward Niksich Carol A. Dillon
Carlisle, Indiana Bryan D. Stoffel
Bleeke Dillon Crandall, P.C.
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Edward Niksich, August 17, 2016
Appellant-Plaintiff, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A02-1601-CT-102
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court.
The Honorable Gary L. Miller,
Dr. Malak Hermina, et al., Judge.
Appellees-Defendants. Cause No. 49D03-1506-CT-019239
Darden, Senior Judge
Statement of the Case
[1] Edward Niksich appeals the trial court’s denial of his Motion for Relief from
Judgment, alleging he did not receive timely notice of the court’s final
judgment, and also appeals the trial court’s order granting the Appellees’
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1601-CT-102 | August 17, 2016 Page 1 of 12
“Motion for Preliminary Determination of Law and Motion for Summary
1
Judgment.” We affirm.
Issue
[2] We consolidate and restate the following to be dispositive to the resolution of
this case: Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Niksich’s
Motion for Relief from Judgment.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] Drs. Malak Hermina, Richard Carr, and Alfred Talens (collectively, the
“Doctors”) were at differing times employed as physicians by Corizon, Inc., a
private company that contracted with the Indiana Department of Correction
(“DOC”) to provide healthcare to inmates in certain DOC facilities. Dr.
Hermina worked for the DOC from September 2005 until April 2012; Dr. Carr
worked for the DOC from May 2007 until June 2009; and, Dr. Talens worked
for the DOC from February 2006 until May 2011. Niksich has been
incarcerated in the DOC since 1991.
[4] When Niksich was processed for entry into the DOC, he tested positive for
hepatitis and was referred to the Indiana State Prison medical facility for tests
and monitoring. In April of 1994, Niksich tested positive for hepatitis C. For
1
Niksich also seeks to appeal the denial of his Motion to Compel Discovery. However, because Niksich did
not make this argument to the trial court, we will not consider it. See Babinchak v. Town of Chesterton, 598
N.E.2d 1099, 1103 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992) (noting that we will not consider arguments raised for the first time
on appeal).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1601-CT-102 | August 17, 2016 Page 2 of 12
the remainder of the time Niksich was housed at the Indiana State Prison, until
1999, prison doctors monitored his liver profiles.
[5] In 1999, Niksich was transferred to the Pendleton Correctional Facility and was
housed there until 2009. Dr. Hermina worked at the Pendleton Correctional
Facility until January 2006 and administered care to Niksich. In January 2008,
Niksich lost consciousness at his prison job and was sent to the Pendleton
Correctional Facility infirmary where he was treated by Dr. Carr. According to
Niksich, he explained to Dr. Carr that he had “tested positive for Hepatitis C
and that [Dr. Carr] may want to check [his] liver enzymes and liver function.”
Appellant’s App. p. 53.
[6] Sometime in 2009, Niksich was moved to the Wabash Valley Correctional
Facility. Dr. Talens administered care to Niksich while he was housed at that
facility. According to Niksich, he informed Dr. Talens that his liver enzymes
should be monitored and treated if they became elevated above normal levels.
[7] By 2012, Niksich was residing at the Westville Correctional Facility. On
November 29, 2012, Niksich was found unconscious in his cell and was
transferred to a hospital for treatment. While in the hospital, Niksich slipped
into a coma. On December 5, 2012, Niksich regained consciousness and was
informed by hospital staff that he had experienced an upper gastrointestinal
bleed, liver and kidney failure, anemia due to blood loss, and hepatic
encephalopathy cirrhosis.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1601-CT-102 | August 17, 2016 Page 3 of 12
[8] Approximately twenty months later, on August 14, 2014, Niksich filed a
Proposed Complaint of medical malpractice with the Indiana Department of
Insurance. In his complaint, he alleged that the Doctors failed to provide him
appropriate medical care while he was an inmate in the DOC. Niksich claimed
he repeatedly informed Drs. Hermina, Carr, and Talens of his elevated liver
enzyme levels but the doctors “fail[ed] to review medical information and/or
documentation within [Niksich’s] medical file . . . which indicate[d] and
establishe[d] a serious medical illness . . . [,]and the progression thereof[,] from
mild liver inflammation and Hepatitis to late stage cirrhosis[.]” Id. at 138.
[9] On June 11, 2015, the Doctors filed their joint Motion for Preliminary
Determination of Law and Motion for Summary Judgment (hereinafter, the
“Doctors’ Motion”), arguing Niksich’s complaint was time-barred by the
Indiana Medical Malpractice Act’s two-year statute of limitations. On July 7,
2015, Niksich filed a Motion for Continuance, requesting additional time to
respond to the Doctors’ Motion. The trial court granted the motion on July 13,
2015, and set a deadline of August 14, 2015, for the response.
[10] Niksich filed his response to the Doctors’ Motion on July 21, 2015. On that
same date, he filed a Motion to Compel Discovery. On July 22, 2015, the trial
court granted the Doctors’ Motion and dismissed with prejudice Niksich’s
complaint. Although, the chronological case summary (CCS) contains a
notation indicating the court order was distributed to the parties; however,
arguably, there is evidence in the record indicating the parties did not
immediately receive copies of the court order.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1601-CT-102 | August 17, 2016 Page 4 of 12
[11] On July 24, 2015, the trial court denied Niksich’s Motion to Compel Discovery
as moot, in light of the court’s July 22, 2015 ruling. On August 6, 2015, the
Doctors filed a reply to Niksich’s response to the Doctors’ Motion. Niksich
filed a response to the reply on August 17, 2015.
[12] On October 20, 2015, Niksich sent a letter to the trial court inquiring as to
whether the court had issued a ruling on the Doctors’ Motion. On October 30,
2015, the Doctors’ counsel sent a letter to Niksich, informing him of the court’s
ruling and enclosing a copy of the ruling. Counsel stated in the letter: “When
we did not receive an Order, we called the Court and they informed us they
never sent the Order out because my office failed to send an envelope. We
therefore picked the Order up in person yesterday from the Court.” Id. at 24.
Niksich received the letter on November 10, 2015. On that same day, Niksich
sent a second letter to the trial court, requesting information on the status of the
court’s ruling on the Doctors’ Motion. Niksich received a copy of the trial
court’s July 22, 2015 order sometime between November 16 and 20, 2015.
[13] On December 2, 2015, Niksich filed a Motion for Relief from Judgment under
Indiana Trial Rule 60(B)(8), alleging he did not receive timely notice of the
court’s ruling. In his motion, he asked the trial court to “vacate the [j]udgment
of July 22, 2015 and re-enter the judgment to reflect the date of the Granting
[sic] of this motion, and direct the clerk of the Court to notify the parties of the
new entry date.” Id. at 13. Niksich maintained the “lack of notice . . . [violated
his] right to appeal from an adverse final judgment . . . .” Id. The trial court
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1601-CT-102 | August 17, 2016 Page 5 of 12
treated Niksich’s motion as a Motion to Correct Error and denied the motion
on December 14, 2015, without a hearing. Niksich now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[14] Although Niksich raises several issues on appeal, we consolidate and restate the
issue for disposition as follows: Whether the trial court abused its discretion by
denying Niksich’s Motion for Relief from Judgment.
[15] Niksich’s motion for relief from judgment was premised on Indiana Trial Rule
72. Trial Rule 72(D) imposes two duties on clerks of court. First, immediately
upon the entry of a ruling upon a motion, an order or judgment, the clerk must
serve a copy of the entry to each of the parties. Second, the clerk must make a
record of such service. The CCS constitutes that record. See Collins v. Covenant
Mut. Ins. Co., 644 N.E.2d 116, 117 (Ind. 1994). Trial Rule 72(E) provides for
relief under certain circumstances for lack of notice, and states:
Lack of notice, or the lack of the actual receipt of a copy of the
entry from the Clerk shall not affect the time within which to
contest the ruling, order or judgment, or authorize the Court to
relieve a party of the failure to initiate proceedings to contest
such ruling, order or judgment, except as provided in this section.
When service of a copy of the entry by the Clerk is not evidenced
by a note made by the Clerk upon the Chronological Case
Summary, the Court, upon application for good cause shown,
may grant an extension of any time limitation within which to
contest such ruling, order or judgment to any party who was
without actual knowledge, or who relied upon incorrect
representations by Court personnel. Such extension shall
commence when the party first obtained actual knowledge and
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1601-CT-102 | August 17, 2016 Page 6 of 12
not exceed the original time limitation.
[16] Notably, Niksich filed a Trial Rule 60(B) motion for relief from judgment – not
a Trial Rule 72(E) motion for extension of time. Our courts have held that
Trial Rule 72(E) is the exclusive method by which a litigant may seek to extend
the time to file a notice of appeal. See Goodrich v. Dearborn County (In re Sale of
Real Prop.), 822 N.E.2d 1063, 1068-70 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (citing Collins, 644
N.E.2d at 116), trans. denied. But where a Trial Rule 60(B) motion clearly
indicates that the basis for the motion is lack of notice under Trial Rule 72(E),
we have treated the motion as a Trial Rule 72(E) motion, noting our preference
for substance over form. See id.
[17] Here, although captioned as a Motion for Relief from Judgment under Trial
Rule 60(B), Niksich clearly requested that the trial court extend the time to
appeal due to his lack of notice of the court’s July 22, 2015 order. See
Appellant’s App. p. 13. Therefore, we will treat Niksich’s motion as a Trial
Rule 72(E) motion for extension of time.
[18] Trial Rule 72(E) applies where the CCS does not contain evidence that a copy
of the trial court’s order was distributed to each party. Collins, 644 N.E.2d at
117-18. We review a trial court’s ruling concerning Trial Rule 72(E) for an
abuse of discretion. Atkins v. Veolia Water Indianapolis, LLC, 994 N.E.2d 1287,
1288 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision
is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances or when the
trial court has misinterpreted the law. Id.Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1601-CT-102 | August 17, 2016 Page 7 of 12
[19] In this case, the CCS entry corresponding to the order granting the Doctors’
Motion reads:
07/23/2015 Order Granting Motion for Summary Judgment
(Judicial Officer: Miller, Gary L)
Order Signed: 07/22/2015
Distribution to parties
Appellant’s App. p. 1. The entry indicates the trial court’s order was distributed
to the parties. Because Rule 72(E) clearly states that relief may only be
obtained if the chronological case summary does not show that a copy of the
entry was made and distributed to the parties, hence, Niksich cannot prevail
given the facts of his case.
[20] We reach this decision although there exists evidence that neither party
received notice of the trial court’s July 22, 2015 order pursuant to Indiana Trial
Rule 5(B). After the order was issued, on August 6, 2015, the Doctors filed a
reply to Niksich’s response to their motion. Niksich then filed a response to the
Doctors’ Motion on August 17, 2015. Later, counsel for the Doctors sent a
letter to Niksich, dated October 30, 2015, informing him that because counsel
failed to provide court staff with mailing envelopes, the July 22, 2015 order was
not distributed to the parties. Nevertheless, we, like the panel in Lodge of the
2
Wabash, Ltd. v. Sullivan, 654 N.E.2d 40 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995), trans. denied, are
2
See Lodge of the Wabash, Ltd., 654 N.E.2d 40 (despite the Lodge’s claim it did not receive notice of court’s
ruling and evidence court staff provided misleading information regarding issuance of the ruling, the Lodge
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1601-CT-102 | August 17, 2016 Page 8 of 12
constrained to follow our Supreme Court’s pronouncement as set forth in
Collins. Collins, 644 N.E.2d 116. As such, we conclude the trial court did not
abuse its discretion when it denied Niksich’s request for relief.
[21] Even if we were to reach the question of whether the trial court erred in
granting the Doctors’ “Motion for Preliminary Determination of Law and
Motion for Summary Judgment,” Niksich would not prevail.
[22] A trial court should grant summary judgment if the pleadings and designated
evidence demonstrate “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that
the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Ind. Trial Rule
56(C). Our review of a trial court’s decision is limited to the evidence
designated by the parties to the trial court. Perdue v. Gargano, 964 N.E.2d 825,
831 (Ind. 2012).
[23] The Medical Malpractice Act’s statute of limitations is found in Indiana Code
section 34-18-7-1(b), which provides: “A claim, whether in contract or tort,
may not be brought against a health care provider based upon professional
services or health care that was provided or that should have been provided
unless the claim is filed within two (2) years after the date of the alleged act,
omission, or neglect. . . .” This is an occurrence-based statute of limitations,
“meaning that an action for medical malpractice generally must be filed within
was precluded from challenging receipt of notice because the CCS contained a specific reference to notice
having been sent).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1601-CT-102 | August 17, 2016 Page 9 of 12
two years from the date the alleged negligent act occurred rather than from the
date it was discovered.” Houser v. Kaufman, 972 N.E.2d 927, 933 (Ind. Ct. App.
2012) (quotation omitted), trans. denied.
“[I]n determining whether a medical malpractice claim has been
commenced within the medical malpractice statute of limitations,
the discovery or trigger date is the point when a claimant either
knows of the malpractice and resulting injury, or learns of facts
that, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, should lead to the
discovery of the malpractice and the resulting injury. . . . The
issue to be determined is the point at which a particular claimant
either knew of the malpractice and resulting injury, or learned of
facts that would have led a person of reasonable diligence to have
discovered the malpractice and resulting injury. If this date is
less than two years after the occurrence of the alleged
malpractice, the statute of limitations bars the claim unless it is
not reasonably possible for the claimant to present the claim in
the remaining time, in which case the claimant must do so within
a reasonable time after the discovery or trigger date. If such date
is more than two years after the occurrence of the malpractice,
the claimant has two years within which to commence the
action.”
David v. Kleckner, 9 N.E.3d 147, 152-53 (Ind. 2014) (citation omitted).
[24] “When a defendant in a medical malpractice action asserts the statute of
limitation as an affirmative defense, the defendant bears the burden of
establishing that the action was commenced outside that statutory period.”
Manley v. Sherer, 992 N.E.2d 670, 674 (Ind. 2013). If this is done, the burden
shifts to the plaintiff to establish “an issue of fact material to a theory that
avoids the defense.” Herron v. Anigbo, 897 N.E.2d 444, 448 (Ind. 2008) (quoting
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1601-CT-102 | August 17, 2016 Page 10 of 12
Boggs v. Tri-State Radiology, Inc., 730 N.E.2d 692, 695 (Ind. 2000)). When the
sole claim of medical malpractice is a failure to diagnose, the omission cannot
as a matter of law extend beyond the time the physician last rendered a
diagnosis. Havens v. Ritchey, 582 N.E.2d 792, 795 (Ind. 1991).
[25] The designated evidence established that Drs. Hermina, Carr, and Talens last
treated Niksich in January of 2006, June of 2009, and May of 2011,
respectively. These dates would have been the last opportunity the doctors had
to diagnose Niksich, and the dates upon which the respective two-year periods
under the statute of limitations began to run. It is undisputed that Niksich
learned of his diagnosis on December 5, 2012, but did not file his complaint
with the Indiana Department of Insurance until August 14, 2014, some twenty
months later, and, more than a year after the statute of limitations ran on any
medical malpractice claim Niksich could have filed against Dr. Talens, the
latter of the three treating doctors.
[26] Niksich argues the doctrine of continuing wrong, as well as fraudulent
concealment apply to his case and tolled the running of the statute of
limitations. However, for the doctrine of continuing wrong to apply, a
physician’s conduct must be more than a single act. See Gradus-Pizlo v. Acton,
964 N.E.2d 865, 871 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (the doctrine of continuing wrong
applies where an entire course of conduct combines to produce an injury;
doctrine applies when plaintiff demonstrates alleged injury-producing conduct
was of a continuous nature). Fraudulent concealment tolls the statute of
limitations in an action under the Medical Malpractice Act until (a) the end of
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1601-CT-102 | August 17, 2016 Page 11 of 12
the physician-patient relationship, (b) the discovery by the patient of the
malpractice, or (c) the discovery of information which in the exercise of
reasonable diligence would lead to the discovery of the malpractice. Spoljaric v.
Pangan, 466 N.E.2d 37, 40 (Ind. Ct. App. 1984), trans. denied.
Conclusion
[27] For the reasons stated above, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
[28] Affirmed.
Baker, J., and Riley, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1601-CT-102 | August 17, 2016 Page 12 of 12