## Facts

- Multiple plaintiffs with pending or potential medical malpractice claims filed separate actions challenging the constitutionality of the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act (MMA).
- The MMA required malpractice claims against qualified health-care providers to be submitted to a medical review panel before a court action could proceed.
- The panel issued an expert opinion on the claim, and that opinion was admissible as evidence in later litigation.
- The MMA limited total recoverable damages per claim to $500,000, with amounts above the provider’s primary coverage payable from a state-administered Patient’s Compensation Fund.
- Plaintiffs alleged the MMA’s pre-suit procedures, damages cap, and administrative framework violated multiple provisions of the Indiana Constitution and the U.S. Constitution.
- Trial courts upheld the MMA; the Indiana Supreme Court reviewed the consolidated cases to resolve the constitutional challenges.

## Issues

1. Whether the MMA violates the Indiana constitutional right to trial by jury by requiring medical review panels and limiting recoverable damages.
2. Whether the MMA violates the Indiana “open courts”/remedy clause by delaying court access and restricting remedies through a damages cap.
3. Whether the MMA denies equal protection or due process under the Indiana Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment by imposing special burdens and limits on malpractice claimants.
4. Whether the MMA violates separation of powers by assigning panel and administrative functions that allegedly intrude on the judiciary.
5. Whether the MMA constitutes impermissible special legislation or grants prohibited special privileges to health-care providers.

## Decision

- The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the judgments upholding the MMA in all consolidated cases.
- The court held the MMA’s mandatory medical review panel requirement is constitutional because it regulates procedure without eliminating jury trial.
- The court held the $500,000 total damages cap and the Patient’s Compensation Fund mechanism are constitutional under state and federal guarantees.
- The court rejected equal protection and due process challenges, concluding the statutory scheme is reasonably related to legitimate legislative objectives responding to the malpractice insurance crisis.
- The court rejected separation-of-powers and special-legislation challenges, finding the panel’s role nonadjudicative and the classification rational and generally applicable within the Act’s scope.

## Legal Principles

- Statutes addressing economic and social policy are presumed constitutional; challengers bear the burden to prove invalidity, and courts apply deferential review absent a suspect classification or fundamental-right infringement.
- A mandatory pre-suit screening process does not violate the right to jury trial when a jury trial remains available and the screening body issues only nonbinding expert evidence the jury may accept or reject.
- The remedy clause guarantees access to courts and a remedy by due course of law, but permits reasonable procedural conditions precedent and does not bar legislative limits on recoverable damages that leave a meaningful remedy.
- Differential treatment of medical malpractice claims is permissible under equal protection and due process when the classification is rationally related to legitimate public purposes, including stabilizing malpractice insurance and maintaining access to health care.
- Separation of powers is not violated when administrative officials manage funds and provider qualification, and when review panels perform advisory/evidentiary functions rather than rendering binding judgments.
- A statute is not unconstitutional special legislation when it applies to an open, general class and the classification bears a reasonable relation to a public concern.

## Conclusion

The Indiana Supreme Court sustained the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act against broad constitutional attack, holding that the Act’s pre-suit medical review panel requirement, damages cap, and related administrative mechanisms validly regulate malpractice litigation to further legitimate public objectives while preserving access to courts and jury trial.


Johnson v. St. Vincent Hosp., Inc., 273 Ind. 374, 404 N.E.2d 585 (Ind. 1980)