July 28, 2011
In
Johnson v. Sullivan, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) Cause No. 82A05-1102-MI-108, the trial court granted summary judgment because a complaint was postmarked one day after the statute of limitations ran. Yesterday, the Indiana Court of Appeals held that this was error.
less..
Johnson received medical treatment at a hospital on December 22, 2006, and died the next day. Two years later, a proposed complaint was filed on her behalf with the IDOI. That proposed complaint was postmarked December 23, 2008, and the IDOI file-stamped it that date.
The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the case was not brought within the applicable statute of limitations. In response, a legal assistant to the plaintiffs' attorney, submitted an affidavit, which averred that she deposited the proposed complaint at the post office on December 22, 2008. The trial court granted the motion.
On appeal, the Court disagreed. It found that the postmark date was not dispositive.
Under the Medical Malpractice Act, the date of delivery or mailing, not the date of postmarking, is the date a proposed complaint is considered filed. ... "A letter, package, or other mailable matter is 'mailed' when it is properly addressed, stamped with the proper postage, and deposited in a proper place for receipt of mail." ... We hold today that evidence of mailing on a particular date, even if it contradicts a postmark, is competent to prove filing on that date for purposes of the Medical Malpractice Act.
Thus, the question of whether the legal assistant deposited the proposed complaint at the post office on December 22, 2006, will be a jury question.
Lesson:
- The date a proposed complaint is properly addressed, stamped with the proper postage, and deposited in a proper place for receipt of mail is the date that it is "mailed", even if the postmark says differently.
Trackback Address :: http://www.indianalawupdate.com/trackback/247
