( A ) any disability and the extent and duration of the disability ; and ( B ) any permanent impairment and the percentage of the impairment .
12 N . Ind . Pub . Serv . v . Sharp , 790 N . E . 2d 462 , 466 ( Ind . 2003 ) ( stating , “ the level of conduct amounting to a
breach ,” when comparing general negligence to gross negligence , “ is quite different .”).
13
Griffith , 602 N . E . 2d at 110 .
14
Sharp , 790 N . E . 2d at 465 ( emphasis added and internal citations omitted ).
15
Med . Licensing Bd . v . Ward , 449 N . E . 2d 1129 , 1139 ( Ind . Ct . App . 1983 ). 16 I . C . § 34-18-10-22 ; see Sharp , 790 N . E . 2d at 466 ( leaving the determination of whether a party acted with gross
negligence “ by engaging in a conscious , voluntary act or omission in reckless disregard for the consequences ” for the jury to decide ); see also Putnam Cnty . Hosp . v . Sells , 619 N . E . 2d 968 , 970 ( Ind . Ct . App . 1993 ) ( internal citations omitted ) ( finding that claims of ordinary negligence , such as premises liability claims , rather than medical negligence claims are not subject to the provisions of the MMA or its procedural prerequisites , because claims of ordinary negligence “ are within the common knowledge and experience of the average person [ and ] health care providers are no more qualified as experts on such matters than the average juror ”); see also Nasser v . St . Vincent Hosp . & Health Servs ., 926 N . E . 2d 43 , 48 ( Ind . Ct . App . 1999 ). 17 Dermatology Associates , P . C . v . White , 67 N . E . 3d 1173 ( Ind . Ct . App . 2017 ) ( demonstrating that the standard
for summary judgment motions presented on a motion for preliminary determination of law is the same as for any other motion for summary judgment ); Giles v . Anonymous Physician I , 13 N . E . 3d 504 , 510 ( Ind . Ct . App . 2014 ) ( noting that a movant is entitled to summary judgment if it can negate at least one essential element of the nonmovant ’ s claims ); I . C . § 34-18-11-1 ; Ind . Trial Rule 56 . 18 White , 67 N . E . 3d at 1173 ); Giles , 13 N . E . 3d at 510 . 19 See Sells , 619 N . E . 2d at 970 ; Giles , 13 N . E . 3d at 510 ( noting that the trial court has jurisdiction under the MMA ,
before the panel issues its opinion , to rule upon issues of law or fact not preserved for the medical review panel that can be preliminarily determined under a T . R . 56 ( C ) motion for summary judgment ). 20 Sharp , 790 N . E . 2d at 466-67 ( holding that matters that are generally questions of fact for the jury can be questions
of law “ where the facts are undisputed and only a single inference can be drawn from those facts ”); Patterson v . Grace , 661 N . E . 2d 580 ( Ind . Ct . App 1996 ) ( intent of the parties in contracts is question of fact ), Berghoff v . McDonald , 87 Ind . 549 ( 1882 ) ( question of intent in fraud claim is question of fact ).
21
See Estate of Maglioli v . Andover Subacute Rehab . Ctr ., 478 F . Supp . 3d 518 ( D . N . J . 2020 ); Dupervil v . All . Health Operations , LLC , 2021 U . S . Dist . LEXIS 20257 ( E . D . N . Y . 2021 ); Estate of Judith Joy Jones v . St . Jude Operating Co ., 2021 U . S . Dist . LEXIS 43876 ( D . Or . 2021 ); Gunter v . CCRC OPCO-Freedom Square , LLC , 2020 U . S . Dist . Lexis 201622 ( M . D . Fla . 2020 ).
22
Riley Bennett Egloff LLP - July 2021