Bojko v. Anonymous: Trial Courts Lack Gatekeeper Role in MMA

In Bojko v. Anonymous Physician, the Indiana Supreme Court clarified the limits of trial court authority during the medical malpractice review process under the state's Medical Malpractice Act (MMA). The decision addressed whether trial courts can mandate redactions of materials submitted to a medical review panel prior to a formal lawsuit.

Allegations Against a Deceased Physician

Between November 2017 and January 2020, six individuals—Richard Bojko, Patricia Gadzala, Katie Greenberg, Vernita Johnson-Macklin, Rachael Richardson, and Kurt Claussen—received medical treatment from an ear, nose, and throat physician. Following the physician’s death in February 2020, these patients filed proposed complaints with the Indiana Department of Insurance, alleging substandard care that led to injuries.

As required under the MMA, medical review panels were formed to evaluate the allegations before litigation could proceed. In preparing for these reviews, the patients submitted evidence including medical records, physician testimony, and narrative statements. The submissions also referenced a wrongful death complaint filed by the physician’s wife against a hospital, alleging that the physician had been discharged while visibly intoxicated and mentally unstable prior to his death.

Trial Court Orders Redactions

The estate of the deceased physician and the medical practice responded by requesting that the trial court order redactions of references to the wife’s complaint and any mentions of drug or alcohol abuse or mental illness. They argued that these were unsubstantiated allegations rather than admissible evidence. The trial court granted the request, directing the patients to remove all such references from their submissions.

The patients filed an interlocutory appeal, but the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the redaction order. The matter was then escalated to the Indiana Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Reverses Redaction Ruling

The Indiana Supreme Court examined two key issues: whether trial courts have authority under Indiana Code § 34-18-10-14 to limit evidence submitted to a medical review panel, and whether the wife's wrongful death complaint constituted “evidence” under the statute.

The Court determined that § 34-18-10-14 allows trial courts to intervene only when a party fails to fulfill specific statutory duties—such as adhering to deadlines or procedural rules—not to serve as a gatekeeper over the substance of submitted materials. The statute mandates that parties “promptly” submit evidence in written form, which can include “any other form of evidence allowable by the medical review panel.” The Court found no statutory language authorizing trial courts to exclude or redact material deemed “non-evidentiary.”

The Court further concluded that the wife’s complaint met the statutory and common-law definitions of evidence. It noted that the material submitted aimed to support claims that the physician’s mental health or substance abuse affected his medical judgment. Thus, whether or not such material was reliable, it was for the panel—not the trial court—to determine its relevance and weight.

Legal Guidance for Medical Malpractice Claims

If you have questions about the medical review panel process or concerns about evidence in a malpractice claim, our team at Whitcomb, Selinsky, PC can help clarify your rights and options under the law.