Opinion
Cause No. 3:05-CV-144 RM.
August 16, 2005
ORDER AND OPINION
Plaintiffs filed this action on March 10, 2005, alleging that Defendants violated Plaintiffs' constitutional rights and committed various acts of medical malpractice. On July 1, 2005, Defendants James, Kirchner, Wade, Adams, Conn, Gore, Laz, Erin, David and Memorial Home Care, Inc. filed a motion to stay. For the following reasons, Defendants' motion [Doc. No. 48] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND
From March 22, 2003 until April 23, 2003, Gregory Zick was detained in the St. Joseph County Jail. During his confinement, Zick was hospitalized and treated for various medical disorders and put on suicide watch. On April 23, 2003, Zick was taken off of suicide watch, at which time, Zick committed suicide.
On March 10, 2005, Plaintiffs, Zick's mother and brother, filed an action in this Court against multiple Defendants, including the jail, jail officers, medical health care facilities, and medical health care professionals. In the complaint, Plaintiffs allege that all of the Defendants violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988), the United States Constitution, Article IV, § 2, as well as the Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs also asserted state law claims sounding in medical malpractice for the wrongful death of Zick.
In April 2005, Plaintiffs filed a complaint with the Indiana Department of Insurance regarding the alleged medical malpractice of the health care providers. On July 1, 2005, Defendants James, Kirchner, Wade, Adams, Conn, Gore, Laz, Erin, David and Memorial Home Care, Inc., filed a motion to stay the proceedings pending the resolution of the medical malpractice complaint. On August 16, 2005, this Court conducted a telephonic conference on Defendants' motion. This Court may rule on Defendants' motion pursuant to its referral order and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).
II. APPLICABLE LAW AND ANALYSIS
Pursuant to Indiana's Medical Malpractice Act, an action against a health care provider may not be commenced in an Indiana court before the complaint has been presented to the medical review panel or before the panel has rendered an opinion on the complaint. Ind. Code § 34-18-8-4. Although Plaintiffs have filed a medical malpractice complaint with the Indiana Department of Insurance, the medical review panel has not yet issued an opinion on the complaint. As this Court borrows Indiana state law for the claims arising under state law, this Court may not entertain Plaintiffs' medical malpractice claims until the medical review panel has reached a decision. Thus, in regards to Plaintiffs' state claims of medical malpractice against the health care providers, Defendants' motion is GRANTED. All discovery regarding the medical malpractice claims is STAYED.
Although Plaintiffs do allege medical malpractice in their complaint, the majority of Plaintiffs' claims are for the alleged constitutional violations. While this Court is required to stay the medical malpractice claims, nothing in the act prohibits this Court from moving forward on the claims against non-health care providers or the constitutional claims asserted against the health care providers. To stay the entire case while only a relatively small portion of the complaint sounds in state law would not promote judicial efficiency since there are multiple Defendants and claims that are not subject to the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act. Rather, a stay of the entire case would contravene Fed.R.Civ.P. 1 which requires this Court to construe the federal rules to ensure a just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of this case. Consequently, Defendants' motion to stay the entire case is DENIED. This case will continue as to Plaintiffs' constitutional claims against all parties.
In their motion, Defendants argue that a stay of the entire case is appropriate under the abstention doctrine. However, as the Medical Malpractice Act only requires that the negligence claims be stayed, and because there are numerous claims that do not contain allegations of medical malpractice, this Court does not wish to address Defendants' abstention arguments.
While staying discovery in a small portion of a case may typically result in some discovery disputes, during the telephonic conference, parties alluded that they have already reached an agreement on how to simultaneously conduct discovery for this case and medical review panel case.
III. CONCLUSION
For the aforementioned reasons, Defendants' motion to stay [Doc. No. 48] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Defendants' motion is GRANTED as it relates to staying the medical malpractice claims against the health care providers. Discovery as to the medical malpractice claims is now STAYED. However, Defendants' motion is DENIED as it relates to staying the entire case. Parties may now conduct discovery related to Plaintiffs' federal issues.
SO ORDERED.