GIBSON v. RANKIN et al

Filing 172

ENTRY Discussing Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment as to State Law Medical Malpractice Claims - The defendants' motion for summary judgment [dkt. 127 ] is granted to the extent that the state law medical malpractice claims against Dr . Joseph, Dr. Rogan, Dr. Barth, and Dr. Clarkson are dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. As a result all claims against Dr. Rogan and Dr. Barth have been resolved. The clerk is directed to terminate these two defendants on the docke t. There is no evidence to suggest that Marla Gadberry or Esther Hinton are qualified health care providers or that they are entitled to any relief under the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act. This Entry does not resolve all claims against all parties. The remaining claims remain under advisement. See Entry for details. Copy sent to plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 6/2/2016. (MAG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION

LIONEL GIBSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
MARLA GADBERRY, TIMOTHY BARTH
M.D., LOLIT JOSEPH, MICHAEL
ROGAN, JOHN B. CLARKSON, ESTHER
HINTON,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:14-cv-00280-JMS-MJD

Entry Discussing Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment as to
State Law Medical Malpractice Claims
Plaintiff Lionel Gibson alleges that Dr. Joseph, Dr. Clarkson, and Ms. Gadberry (“the
Corizon defendants”) provided constitutionally inadequate care for Gibson’s scalp condition, and
that Ester Hinton (an Indiana Department of Corrections employee) was deliberately indifferent to his
serious medical needs by obstructing his access to adequate medical care. These claims are brought
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court also permitted Gibson’s state law medical malpractice claims
to proceed against Dr. Joseph, Dr. Rogan, Dr. Barth, Dr. Clarkson, and Ms. Gadberry. Gibson further
alleges that Esther Hinton was negligent by providing inaccurate information during the grievance
process and thus is liable to him under Indiana law. All defendants seek resolution of the claims
alleged against them through summary judgment.
A motion for summary judgment asks that the Court find that a trial based on the
uncontroverted and admissible evidence is unnecessary because, as a matter of law, it would conclude
in the moving party’s favor. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 56.

For the reasons explained below, Dr. Joseph, Dr. Rogan, Dr. Barth, and Dr. Clarkson are
entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the malpractice claims alleged against them. The remaining
claims remain under advisement and will be addressed in a separate Entry.
DISCUSSION
Under Indiana law, to show medical negligence, a plaintiff must show: (1) a duty to
conform one’s conduct to a standard of care arising from the relationship with the defendant, (2) a
failure to conform one’s conduct to the standard of care required, and (3) an injury caused by the
failure. Perkins v. Lawson, 312 F.3d 872, 876 (7th Cir. 2002); Methodist Hosp., Inc. v. Johnson,
856 N.E.2d 718, 720-21 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). The Indiana Malpractice Act requires that plaintiffs
must submit their claims to a medical review panel before filing a lawsuit in court. See Ind. Code.
§ 34-18-8-4.
Gibson alleges medical negligence against Dr. Joseph, Dr. Rogan, Dr. Barth, and Dr.
Clarkson based on their treatment of his scalp condition. The Corizon defendants argue that they
are entitled to summary judgment because Gibson has not provided any evidence that he complied
with the statutory prerequisites for filing a medical malpractice action in Indiana. See Ind. Code.
§ 34-18-8-4.

Gibson argues in response that state malpractice procedural

requirements do not apply in federal court. But he is mistaken. This requirement
applies even in federal court. See Hines v. Elkhart Gen. Hosp., 603 F.2d 646, 647 (7th Cir. 1979)
(holding that Indiana Malpractice Act's requirements applied in a federal case based on diversity
jurisdiction).
The parties do not dispute that Dr. Joseph, Dr. Rogan, Dr. Barth, and Dr. Clarkson are
qualified health care providers pursuant to the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act, 1 that plaintiff

1

This fact was gleaned from the Indiana State Department of Insurances’ online records. See

Gibson did not file a Proposed Complaint for Medical Malpractice before the Indiana Department of
Insurance (“IDOI”), and that he did not receive an opinion from a Medical Review Panel prior to
filing his lawsuit. Indiana Code § 34-18-8-4 provides in relevant part that “an action against a health
care provider may not be commenced in a court in Indiana before: (1) the claimant’s proposed
complaint has been presented to a medical review panel . . . and (2) an opinion is given by the panel.”
Based on these facts, the plaintiff’s failure to file a Proposed Complaint with the IDOI and
convene a Medical Review Panel divests this Court of subject matter jurisdiction over the medical
malpractice claims alleged against Dr. Joseph, Dr. Rogan, Dr. Barth, and Dr. Clarkson. See Castelli
v. Steele, 700 F. Supp. 449, 455 (S.D. Ind. 1998) (noting that the medical malpractice action filed in
an Indiana court must be dismissed without prejudice for want of jurisdiction if an opinion has not
first been rendered by a medical review panel).
For these reasons, the defendants’ motion for summary judgment [dkt. 127] is granted to the
extent that the state law medical malpractice claims against Dr. Joseph, Dr. Rogan, Dr. Barth, and
Dr. Clarkson are dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. As a result all claims against
Dr. Rogan and Dr. Barth have been resolved. The clerk is directed to terminate these two defendants
on the docket.
There is no evidence to suggest that Marla Gadberry or Esther Hinton are qualified health
care providers or that they are entitled to any relief under the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act. This
Entry does not resolve all claims against all parties. The remaining claims remain under advisement.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: June 2, 2016

_______________________________
Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

https://www.indianapcf.com/Public/index.aspx (last visited May 19, 2016).

Distribution:
All Electronically Registered Counsel
LIONEL GIBSON
104608
NEW CASTLE - CF
NEW CASTLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY - Inmate Mail/Parcels
1000 Van Nuys Road
NEW CASTLE, IN 47362