# Johnson v. Gupta

> Indiana Court of Appeals · July 21, 1997 · 682 N.E.2d 827

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9728510

## Case

- **Full name:** Charlotte JOHNSON, Appellant-Plaintiff, v. Arjum GUPTA, M.D., and Wallace Sherritt, D.O., Appellees-Defendants
- **Court:** Indiana Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** July 21, 1997
- **Citations:** 682 N.E.2d 827; 1997 Ind. App. LEXIS 935; 1997 WL 403702
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Friedlander
- **Judges:** Staton, Garrard, Friedlander
- **Cited by:** 4 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9728510

## Opinion text

FRIEDLANDER, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s affirmance of summary judgment in favor of the appellees.
The majority affirms summary judgment based upon its conclusion that the two-year, occurrence-based statute of limitations in the Medical Malpractice Act is constitutional. In so holding, the majority rejects Martin v. Richey, 674 N.E.2d 1015 (Ind.Ct.App.1997). The Martin panel concluded that the statute of limitations in question runs afoul of the open court guarantee contained in Article 1, § 12 of the Indiana Constitution. I agree with the Martin analysis and conclude that the statute of limitations is unconstitutional. See also Harris v. Raymond, 680 N.E.2d 551 (Ind.Ct.App.1997) (agreeing with Martin that the statute of limitations is unconstitutional).
I would reverse summary judgment upon my conclusion that the occurrence-based statute of limitations in the Medical Malpractice Act is unconstitutional.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9728510. Public record. Not legal advice.