It Is "Untenable" to Argue that No Statute of Limitations Applies to a Claim
Statute of Limitations
November 22, 2011
Earlier this year, I told you about a decision from the Indiana Court of Appeals that held that the general statute of limitations applies to an action by a medical provider for payment for services provided to an injured employee. The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer in a related case case and reached the same result on November 17, 2011 in Indiana Spine Group, PC v. Pilot Travel Centers, LLC, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. 2011), Cause No. 93S02-1102-EX-90. The Indiana Supreme Court's rationale was similar to that of the Indiana Court of Appeals. Of note, though, was the Court's reaction to Pilot's argument that the general statute of limitations did not apply to the action.
Unlike the Court of Appeals' decision we wrote about previously, the Court in this case made it clear that a ten-year statute of limitation applied to these claims. However, the Court did not say when the statute is triggered.
Earlier this year, I told you about a decision from the Indiana Court of Appeals that held that the general statute of limitations applies to an action by a medical provider for payment for services provided to an injured employee. The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer in a related case case and reached the same result on November 17, 2011 in Indiana Spine Group, PC v. Pilot Travel Centers, LLC, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. 2011), Cause No. 93S02-1102-EX-90. The Indiana Supreme Court's rationale was similar to that of the Indiana Court of Appeals. Of note, though, was the Court's reaction to Pilot's argument that the general statute of limitations did not apply to the action.
Pilot counters that a statute of limitation applicable to civil actions brought in a judicial proceeding is inapplicable to an administrative proceeding, and "[t]herefore, the Board does not have jurisdiction to interpret and apply [Indiana Code section 34-11-1-2] to provider fee claims." ... However, not being bound by the statute of limitation applicable to civil actions is quite a different proposition than being prohibited from relying on the statute where the Act itself is silent on the issue. Indeed the counter proposition is that no limitation period of any kind is applicable to provider claims. This is an untenable position. Rather, we agree that "the legislature enacted the general statutes of limitation for the very purpose of supplying a statute of limitation when one has not otherwise been provided by a more specific statutory scheme." Int'l Entm't, 940 N.E.2d at 383-84.
Unlike the Court of Appeals' decision we wrote about previously, the Court in this case made it clear that a ten-year statute of limitation applied to these claims. However, the Court did not say when the statute is triggered.
Trackback Address :: http://www.indianalawupdate.com/trackback/294
