Riley Bennett Egloff Magazine January 2019 | Page 11

This article is not intended to be an exhaustive review and analysis of case law in which Indiana Courts have
reviewed and interpreted the Medical Malpractice Act’s occurrence based statute of limitations. Instead, the goal
of this article is to demonstrate that the timeliness of a proposed complaint is not always as obvious as it may
appear at first blush and potential statute of limitations defenses should be routinely considered.
1 Houser v. Kaufman, 972 N.E.2d 927 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), trans. denied. (citation omitted).
2 Van Dusen v. Stotts, 712 N.E.2d 491 (Ind. 1999); Martin v Richey, 711 N.E.2d 1273 (Ind. 1999).
3 See, e.g., Herron v Anigbo, 897 N.E.2d 444 (Ind. 2008).
4 Id.
5 Booth v. Wiley, 839 N.E.2d 1168 (Ind. 2005).
6 Frady, 497 N.E.2d at 622; Boggs v. Tri-State Radiology, Inc., 730 N.E.2d 692 (Ind. 2000).
7 Coffer v Arndt, 732 N.E.2d 815 (Ind.Ct.App. 2000).
8 Havens v Ritchey, 582 N.E.2d 792 (Ind. 1991).
9 Szamocki v Anonymous Doctor, 70 N.E.3d 419 (Ind.Ct.App. 2017).
10 Id.
11 Coffer, supra.
12 Palmer v. Gorecki, 844 N.E.2d 149 (Ind.Ct.App. 2006).
13 Biedron v. Anonymous Physician 1, 106 N.E.3d 1079 (Ind.Ct.App. 2018).
14 Id.
15 Cyrus v. Nero, 546 N.E.2d 328 (Ind.Ct.App. 1989).
16 Biedron, supra, citing French v. Hickman Moving & Storage, 400 N.E.2d 1384 (Ind.Ct.App. 1980).
17 Hughes v. Glaese, 659 N.E.2d 516 (Ind. 1995).
18 Id. (Internal citations omitted).
19 Herron, supra.
20 Id.
21 Id.
22 Jeffrey v. Methodist Hospitals, 956 N.E.2d 151 (Ind.Ct.App. 2011).
23 Id.
24 Id.
25 Williams v. Adelsperger, 918 N.E.2d 440 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).
26 Id.
27 Martin, supra.
28 Boggs, supra
29 Herron v. Anigbo, 897 N.E.2d 444 (Ind.2008).
30 Halbe v. Weinberg, 717 N.E.2d 876 (Ind.1999).
RBELAW.com
11