May, J.
The Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion County d/b/a Eagle Valley Meadows and American Senior Communities, LLC (collectively, “Eagle Valley Meadows”) appeal the trial court’s order denying their motion for summary judgment. Eagle Valley Meadows presents one issue for our review, which we revise and restate as whether a proposed complaint alleging medical malpractice filed with the Indiana Department of Insurance in the name of a deceased individual on behalf of a deceased alleged victim of malpractice tolls the statute of limitations pursuant to Indiana Code section 34-18-7-3. We affirm and remand.
….
Eagle Valley Meadows argues that because Betty was dead at the time the proposed complaint was filed with the IDOI, the proposed complaint was void ab initio. [Footnote omitted.] In support of its argument, Eagle Valley Meadows cites numerous cases from around the country that hold a deceased individual cannot initiate a lawsuit….
However, none of the cases cited by Eagle Valley Meadows involves a proposed complaint filed in front of a medical review panel, which is the situation in the case at bar. At the summary judgment hearing, the trial court specifically asked Eagle Valley Meadows, “[A]re there any more current Court of Appeals or Indiana Supreme Court cases that talk about a position of an improper party at the Indiana Department of Insurance level and how that translates to a superior court filing?” (Tr. Vol. II at 16.) Eagle Valley Meadows acknowledged that it could not find an appellate decision with the same procedural facts as the instant case. We therefore hold that, while a party must be alive to initiate a complaint in a state or federal court, the cases Eagle Valley Meadows cites do not answer whether a proposed complaint filed before the IDOI by the deceased administrator of the alleged malpractice victim’s estate tolls the statute of limitations. [Footnote omitted.]
Nor do the Indiana Trial Rules determine the issue presented in the instant case. [Footnote omitted.] The Trial Rules require a living plaintiff to file a complaint in state court. See Ind. T.R. 17(A) (“Every action shall be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.”). If the plaintiff subsequently dies or becomes incompetent, then the plaintiff’s successor in interest may be substituted for the plaintiff. Ind. T.R. 25. But the Trial Rules’ pertinence to proceedings before the IDOI and the medical review panel is unsettled…. However, neither party provided authority regarding the applicability of Trial Rule 17 or Trial Rule 25 to proceedings before the medical review panel.
Dial relies on out-of-state cases that have allowed substitution pursuant to the particular state’s court rules for a deceased party after the statute of limitations period has expired… However, like the cases cited by Eagle Valley Meadows, these cases all concern matters filed in state courts rather than proposed medical malpractice complaints presented to a medical review panel. Dial’s invocation of Indiana Code section 34-11-8-1, which allows for the continuation of an action if it abates or is defeated by the death of a party, is misplaced because the statute also contemplates that the plaintiff was alive when the lawsuit was filed. Id. (“This section applies if a plaintiff commences an action and . . .”). We are thus left with a question of first impression.
Even though the Indiana Constitution does not have a “case or controversy” clause like the United States Constitution, Indiana courts are limited by the doctrine of judicial restraint to the resolution of “concrete disputes” between litigants… Therefore, while Robert is the victim of the alleged malpractice, the administrator of his estate is the real party in interest and is required to bring suit in state court because the administrator stands to recover and distribute whatever judgment may be entered against Eagle Valley Meadows. See Ind. Code § 34-23-1-1 (personal representative of deceased individual may bring wrongful death action against tortfeasor due to tortfeasor’s wrongful act or omission, if had the deceased individual lived, the deceased individual could have sued the tortfeasor for the same act or omission). The presence of a living party able to accept relief is part and parcel of the court performing its judicial function.
We are not convinced, however, that the medical review process requires that a proposed complaint be filed by a living person as administrator of the estate of a deceased victim of alleged medical malpractice. “The purpose of the medical review panel is to ‘review medical malpractice complaints’” and “‘express [an] expert opinion as to whether or not the evidence supports the conclusion that the defendant or defendants failed to act within the appropriate standards of care as charged in the complaint.’” Whitfield v. Wren, 14 N.E.3d 792, 805-06 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (citing Ind. Code § 34-18-10-1, -22(a)) (emphases removed) (brackets in original). The central issue for the medical review panel was whether Eagle Valley Meadows’ care for Robert fell below the applicable standard of care. The identity of the administrator of Robert’s estate is not relevant to that question. Even though the proposed complaint contained claims supposedly brought in Betty’s individual capacity, those claims were directly linked to damages incurred as a result of the allegedly negligent medical care given to Robert.
….
Conclusion
A proposed complaint before the IDOI is not void ab initio simply because it was filed in the name of a deceased individual as administrator of the estate of a deceased alleged victim of malpractice. Therefore, the filing of the proposed complaint in the case at bar served to toll the statute of limitations, and Dial’s suit against Eagle Valley Meadows was timely filed. We thus affirm the trial court’s denial of Eagle Valley Meadows’ motion for summary judgment and remand for further proceedings.
Affirmed and remanded.