Doherty v. Purdue Props. I, LLC

153 N.E.3d 228

Deborah DOHERTY and Sandra Luedtke, as agent and attorney-in-fact for Deborah Doherty, Appellants/Plaintiffs,

v.PURDUE PROPERTIES I, LLC ; Campus Apartments Management, LLC; Corridor, LLC; and Corridor Ventures, Inc., Appellees/Defendants.

Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-CT-2807

Court of Appeals of Indiana.

Filed June 29, 2020

Publication Ordered July 29, 2020

Case Summary

[1] Deborah Doherty suffers from hydrocephalus, a condition in which fluid accumulates on her brain, and has been receiving Social Security benefits related to her condition since 2010. In February of 2014, Doherty slipped and fell on snow-covered stairs outside of her West Lafayette apartment building, which was owned and operated by Purdue Properties I, LLC; Campus Apartments Management, LLC; Corridor, LLC; and Corridor Ventures, Inc. (collectively, "Purdue"). In February of 2016, Doherty and her mother Sandra Luedke (collectively, "Appellants") sued Purdue for negligence, claiming that Doherty had suffered a traumatic brain injury ("TBI") in her fall. In September of 2018, Appellants sought leave to amend their complaint to add a request for punitive damages, which request the trial court ultimately denied.

[2] Meanwhile, Purdue had requested production of, inter alia , Doherty's Social Security Administration ("SSA") records. After Appellants refused to produce the SSA records, Purdue sought and obtained an order to compel them to request the release of records related to her hydrocephalus. When Appellants refused to comply with the trial court's order to compel, Purdue moved for a rule to show cause why they should not be held in contempt or sanctioned. After a hearing, the trial court ordered Appellants' complaint dismissed as a sanction for their refusal to comply with its order to compel. Appellants contend that the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing their complaint because (1) Purdue failed to establish that Doherty's SSA records were necessary to its defense; (2) federal law prevents the trial court from ordering Appellants to request the release of the records; (3) even if the trial court had the authority to order them to request the release of the SSA records, dismissal was an inappropriate sanction for refusing to do so; and (4) the trial court abused its discretion in denying them leave to amend their complaint. Because we disagree with Appellants' first three contentions and conclude that their fourth is moot, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] Doherty, born in 1969, suffers from congenital hydrocephalus, a condition in which excess cerebrospinal fluid builds up within the fluid-containing cavities or ventricles of the brain. Symptoms of hydrocephalus that may be seen in adults include headache, difficulty remaining awake, loss of coordination or balance, bladder control issues, and impaired vision and cognition.

Doherty began living independently in Texas in 2003, but around 2005 Doherty began having difficulty managing her money, a job, her apartment, and other aspects of living independently. In early 2008, Doherty returned to Indiana and, on February 29, underwent a neuropsychological evaluation performed by Dr. Jill Salem, Ph.D., HSPP. After Doherty's evaluation by Dr. Salem and upon her advice, Luedke applied for disability benefits for Doherty with the SSA. The SSA approved the application for disability benefits in 2010.

[4] At approximately 7:45 a.m. on February 18, 2014, Doherty left the West Lafayette apartment building in which she had been living for five years, which building was owned and operated by Purdue. The door used by Doherty led to a set of five stairs leading up that were covered with packed snow. As Doherty attempted to climb the stairs, she lost her footing, fell backwards, and hit her head on the door frame. On February 10, 2016, Appellants filed suit against Purdue alleging, inter alia , negligence on the part of Purdue and that Doherty's fall had caused a TBI. Appellants claimed that Doherty's alleged accident-related TBI had caused significant cognitive and physical deficiencies that were not present before her fall.

[5] On September 21, 2018, Appellants sought leave to amend their complaint to add a request for punitive damages based on the allegation that Purdue's actions had exhibited a conscious disregard for the safety of its residents. Although the trial court initially granted Appellants leave to amend their complaint, on October 15, 2018, the trial court granted Purdue's motion to reconsider, withdrawing its leave.

[6] Meanwhile, Purdue had sought discovery of Doherty's medical records before and after her fall. On March 4, 2016, Appellants provided Purdue with a compact disc containing a number of Doherty's medical records from before and after the fall. The medical records were not made part of the record below, and it is unknown how many related to treatment for Doherty's hydrocephalus. At some point, Purdue requested that Appellants sign a request prepared by it to release Doherty's SSA records. Appellants refused to sign the release, and, on February 27, 2019, Purdue moved to compel discovery.

[7] On April 15, 2019, the trial court held a hearing on Purdue's motion to compel. At the hearing, Purdue argued that discovery had left a gap from 2008 to 2015 regarding medical records for Doherty's hydrocephalus and that her SSA records were necessary to evaluate her condition prior to and after her fall in February of 2014. Purdue also noted that Doherty herself was no longer competent to testify regarding her prior medical treatment and argued that, therefore, it was the only way to obtain the information it sought. Appellants argued that the trial court lacked the legal authority to order them to request the release of Doherty's SSA records and that they were not necessary in any event because of the medical records they had produced in March of 2016. Appellants did not admit any of those medical records at the hearing, and there is no indication of how many, if any, of them related to the treatment of Doherty's hydrocephalus. Following the hearing, the trial court granted Purdue's motion to compel discovery, ordered Purdue to modify the SSA request to limit the release of only the records necessary to fill in the gaps in Doherty's medical history, and ordered the parties to execute a confidentiality agreement.

[8] Appellants refused to comply with the trial court's order to compel, and, on July 15, 2019, Purdue petitioned for a rule to show cause why Appellants should not be held in contempt of court or, in the alternative, why they should not be sanctioned pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 37(B). On October 29, 2019, the trial court ordered Appellants' complaint dismissed pursuant to Trial Rule 37(B)(2)(c) as a sanction for refusal to comply with the order to compel discovery.

Discussion and Decision

I. Whether the Trial Court Abused its Discretion in Dismissing Appellants' Complaint

[9] Appellants contend that the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing their complaint as a discovery sanction for refusing to sign a request to release Doherty's SSA records. Pursuant to Trial Rule 26(B)(1), a party "may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject-matter involved in the pending action whether it relates to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery[.]" The purpose of Indiana's discovery rules is "to allow a liberal discovery procedure" for the purpose of providing litigants "with information essential to the litigation of all relevant issues, eliminate surprise and to promote settlement." Canfield v. Sandock , 563 N.E.2d 526, 528 (Ind. 1990). A trial court is vested with "broad discretion in ruling on issues of discovery." Allstate Ins. Co. v. Scroghan , 851 N.E.2d 317, 321 (Ind. App. Ct. 2006). Appellants argue that Purdue failed to establish that Doherty's SSA records were necessary and the trial court lacked the authority to order them to request their release even if they were. Appellants also argue that, even if the trial court properly ordered the production of Doherty's SSA records, dismissal was an inappropriately punitive sanction for their refusal to do so.

A. Whether Purdue Established that Doherty's SSA Records were Necessary

[10] Appellants contend that Purdue failed to establish the need for Doherty's SSA records. When a discovery request is made, the trial court must first determine whether the information sought is relevant to the issue being tried. Bishop v. Goins , 586 N.E.2d 905, 907 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992). If the information is not relevant, no further inquiry is necessary, and the discovery is prohibited. Id. The trial court, however, can also deny a discovery request for relevant material when it determines that information sufficient to prepare the case has already been exchanged or when the information sought has already been provided through prior discovery. Coster v. Coster , 452 N.E.2d 397, 400 (Ind. Ct. App. 1983). Because of the fact-sensitive nature of discovery issues, the trial court's decisions are clothed with a presumption of correctness on appeal. Lucas v. Dorsey Corp. , 609 N.E.2d 1191, 1197 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993), trans. denied .

[11] Appellants did not argue below that Doherty's SSA records were not relevant, only that they were not necessary because of the medical records they had already produced. Consequently, to the extent that Appellants argue on appeal that the SSA records were not relevant, they have waived that claim for appellate review. See, e.g. , Smith v. Marion Cty. Dep't of Pub. Welfare , 635 N.E.2d 1144, 1148 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) ("This court has determined that a party may not raise an issue for the first time on appeal."), trans. denied . That leaves us with the question of whether the trial court abused its discretion in determining that the SSA records were necessary.

[12] At the hearing on the motion to compel discovery, Purdue argued that there was a...