The Indiana Medical Malpractice Act’s statute of limitations, codified at Indiana Code Section 34-18-7-1, provides for a two-year statute of limitations period for claims “brought against a health care provider based upon professional services or health care that was provided or that should have been provided . . . .” The statute of limitations is “an ‘occurrence’ statute as opposed to a ‘discovery’ statute”; thus, plaintiffs ordinarily must file suit within two years of the alleged malpractice, regardless of when the malpractice is discovered.
The Indiana Supreme Court, however, has held that the statute of limitations is “unconstitutional as applied when [the] plaintiff did not know or, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have discovered that she had sustained an injury as a result of malpractice” within the two-year statute of limitations period.
The ultimate question becomes the time at which a patient either (1) knows of the malpractice and resulting injury or (2) learns of facts that, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, should lead to the discovery of the malpractice and the resulting injury. If either of these two circumstances occurs within the two-year statute of limitations period, the statute of limitations applies, unless it is not reasonably possible for the claimant to present the claim in the remaining time.
In determining whether the patient has learned facts that, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, should lead to the discovery of the malpractice, the date on which the patient learns of the injury and the prior treatment starts the
limitations period, even if there is no basis to allege malpractice at that point. A plaintiff does not need to be told malpractice occurred to trigger the statute of limitations. Further, expert advice is not required to put a patient on notice that problems may be due to malpractice; rather, the patient’s duty to inquire into the potential malpractice may arise from a patient’s ordinary experiences and observations, provided that these facts are such that they do or should reasonably lead to the discovery of the malpractice and resulting injury.
Generally, factual issues regarding the date on which the plaintiff first learned of the injury are to be resolved by the trier of fact at trial. Nonetheless, the trigger date often may be resolved as a matter of law. The trigger date becomes a matter of law when it is clear that the plaintiff knew, or should have known, of the alleged symptom or condition, and facts that in the exercise of reasonable diligence would lead to discovery of the potential of malpractice and/or when there is undisputed evidence that leads to the legal conclusion that the plaintiff should have learned of the alleged malpractice and there is no obstacle to initiating litigation.
In an Indiana medical malpractice case decided by the Court of Appeals of Indiana on July 25, 2026, the Court stated: “Nichols experienced post-surgery symptoms that would have alerted a reasonable person to the possibility of malpractice. For months after her surgery, Nichols was in severe pain, and her knee continued to feel swollen and stiff. These were “all of the same” symptoms Nichols experienced after her 2016 knee replacement surgery, for which she filed a separate malpractice claim … Nichols was aware of her knee’s condition before the 2017 surgery and aware of the fact that her knee failed to improve over a year after the surgery. In fact, within approximately one-month of the surgery, Nichols formed the belief that there was a “problem” with the surgery, and Nichols’s post-surgery symptoms
were the impetus for her consultation with Dr. Benner.”
The Court held: “We conclude that Nichols learned facts that, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have led to the discovery of the alleged malpractice. Within approximately one month of her surgery, Nichols experienced prolonged unexpected post-surgery symptoms, which led her to believe there was a problem with her surgery. This date was within two years of Nichols’s revision surgery, which occurred on October 10, 2017, and, as a result, the two-year statute of limitations applies. Nichols, thus, had two years from the date of the revision surgery to file suit. Though Nichols was represented by counsel, she did not file suit until February 10, 2022. Accordingly, Nichols’s medical malpractice claim is barred by the statute of limitations, and the trial court did not err by granting the Defendants’ motion for preliminary determination and entering judgment in their favor.”
Source Nichols v. Anonymous Physician and Anonymous Medical Group, Memorandum Decision 22A-CT-3087.
If you or a loved one were harmed as a result of medical malpractice in Indiana or in another U.S. state, you should promptly find an Indiana medical malpractice lawyer, or a medical malpractice lawyer in your state, who may investigate your malpractice claim for you and represent you or your loved one in a medical malpractice malpractice case, if appropriate.
Click here to visit our website or call us toll-free in the United States at 800-295-3959 to find medical malpractice attorneys in your U.S. state who may assist you.
Turn to us when you don’t know where to turn.