Preview:

Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

FILED
Dec 24 2008, 9:13 am
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

CLERK

APPELLANTS PRO SE: SHARON ELAINE EDWARDS ANTOINETTE ELAINE EDWARDS JOHN MILTON EDWARDS, III Noblesville, Indiana

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: RORI L. GOLDMAN Hill Fulwider McDowell Funk & Matthews Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
SHARON ELAINE EDWARDS, ANTOINETTE ELAINE EDWARDS, JOHN MILTON EDWARDS, III, Appellants-Plaintiffs, vs. MARTIN GARY GROFF, Ph.D., Appellee-Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 49A02-0802-CV-125

APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable S. K. Reid, Judge Cause No. 49D12-0708-CT-3292

December 24, 2008 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION BARNES, Judge

Case Summary Sharon Edwards appeals the trial courts dismissal of her medical malpractice claim. We affirm. Issue Edwards raises multiple issues on appeal, but we find only one dispositive: whether the proposed medical malpractice complaint filed in 2007 was timely. Facts Edwards filed a proposed medical malpractice complaint on her behalf and on behalf of her two adult children, Antoinette and John, against Martin Gary Groff, Ph.D. on May 10, 2007. Dr. Groff performed a court-ordered psychological evaluation of the children in 1986 during a child custody matter. Edwards now alleges that Groff was colluding with a corrupt judge and filed a false report, which forced her and her children to endure years of violence and abuse at the hands of her ex-husband. The proposed complaint seems to allege that Dr. Groff performed an improper examination, failed to diagnose Edwards as a victim of domestic abuse, and refused to produce copies of his reports. Dr. Groff filed a motion for preliminary determination and dismissal on August 8, 2007. The trial court conducted a hearing on the motion on November 28, 2007.

Edwards appeared, but Antoinette and John did not attend. Dr. Groff argued that the medical malpractice claim was untimely and that Dr. Groff was acting in an official capacity in performing the court ordered evaluation and would be subject to judicial immunity. Edwards argued Dr. Groffs examination of her children led them to be 2

subjected to years of abuse. She contended that she did not discover Dr. Groffs failures and the conspiracy until nearly twenty years later because she was suffering from abuse and mental illness. The trial court granted Dr. Groffs motion for preliminary determination and dismissed Edwards proposed complaint. Edwards filed a motion to correct error, which was denied. This appeal followed. Analysis A motion for preliminary determination of law is a procedure unique to Indianas Medical Malpractice Act that authorizes a trial court to assert jurisdiction over specific issues before a medical review panel has acted. See Ind. Code

Download Sharon Elaine Edwards, Antoinette Elaine Edwards, et al v. Martin Gary Groff, Ph

Indiana Law