English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

For medical malpractice actions in Indiana, a frequently contradictory and always-confusing pool of jurisprudence has swelled around the statute of limitations. With its announcement of an accrual-based standard in 1999, the Indiana Supreme Court imposed a seemingly-impossible challenge on Indiana patients, attorneys, and judges: divine the factor(s) areviewing court will deem sufficient to trigger the statute of limitations in a given medical malpractice case. For some litigants, this confounding exercise means filing a lawsuit solely to protect the statute of limitations even before the patient or her attorney knows that a claim exists, leaving the litigant to hope that her suspicions of negligence will find support in the evidence. For the more dutiful litigant, any investigation designed to detect or confirm negligence risks a post hoc evaluation of past symptoms, test results, conversations, or diagnoses which, in retrospect, should have led to the discovery of the malpractice. And each time an Indiana court dares attempt to create unity out of the impossibly-inconsistent precedent that came before, a subsequent court tears down the transitory edifice of consensus as quickly as it had been built. This frustrating pattern culminated in late 2009 when the Indiana Court of Appeals forced medical malpractice litigants back to square one on nearly every principle of discovery rule jurisprudence established over the prior decade. This Article tracks the common law evolution of the discovery rule in Indiana's medical malpractice jurisprudence, synthesizes the common law history into a workable framework for future applications of the accrual-based standard, and then explores the Indiana Court of Appeals' unilateral destruction of that framework in the 2009 case ofWilliams v. Adelsperger.

indiana health law review

Snatching Confusion from the Jaws of Clarity: The Puzzling Evolution of the Discovery Rule Vis-a-vis Indiana's Medical Malpractice Statute of Limitations