MEMORANDUM DECISION
Mar 20 2015, 9:20 am
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this
Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as
precedent or cited before any court except for the
purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata,
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
Robert G. Zeigler John Muller
Karen L. Withers Montross, Miller, Muller, Mendelson, &
Zeigler, Cohen, & Koch Kennedy
Indianapolis, Indiana Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Frank A. Workman, M.D., March 20, 2015
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Cause No.
49A04-1407-CT-314
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court; The Honorable Theodore
Sosin, Judge;
Ann O’Bryan, 49D02-1401-CT-2087
Appellee-Plaintiff.
May, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Opinion 49A04-1407-CT-314 | March 20, 2015 Page 1 of 4
[1] Frank A. Workman, M.D. appeals the denial of his motion to transfer venue.
[2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] On January 27, 2014, Ann O’Bryan filed a complaint for medical malpractice
against Dr. Workman in Marion County, Indiana. O’Bryan alleged Dr.
Workman treated her in 2004 at his office in Marion County. O’Bryan
currently lives in Illinois; Dr. Workman lives in Hamilton County.
[4] Dr. Workman filed a motion to transfer venue to Hamilton County, and the
trial court granted his motion. O’Bryan filed a motion to reconsider, arguing
she was “not afforded adequate time to respond to the motion before the
motion was granted” and she “ha[d] doubts about unverified statements made
in [Dr. Workman’s] motion regarding Dr. Workman’s residence and place(s) of
business.” (App. at 32.) Dr. Workman responded, attaching an affidavit in
which he attested: “I do not practice in Marion County, and I do not have an
office in Marion County.” (Id. at 48) (emphasis in original).
[5] The trial court held a hearing at which O’Bryan argued Dr. Workman
maintained multiple offices in Marion County for billing, registration, and other
administrative purposes and thus Marion County was a county of preferred
venue. The trial court granted O’Bryan permission to depose Dr. Workman
regarding the issue of venue and whether he had offices in Marion County.
O’Bryan deposed Dr. Workman, then filed her response to Dr. Workman’s
motion to transfer venue. The trial court denied Dr. Workman’s motion.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Opinion 49A04-1407-CT-314 | March 20, 2015 Page 2 of 4
[6] We accepted jurisdiction of this interlocutory appeal.
Discussion and Decision
[7] We review for an abuse of discretion an order on a motion to transfer venue
pursuant to Trial Rule 75(A). Brower Corp. v. Brattain, 792 N.E.2d 75, 77 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2003). An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s decision is
clearly against the logic and effects of the facts before it, or if the trial court has
misinterpreted the law. Id. Trial Rule 75(A) allows a claim to be filed in any
court in any county in Indiana, but it also lists nine situations under which a
county is considered a “preferred venue.” T.R. 75(A)(1)-(A)(9). Counties that
meet any of those nine requirements are equally preferred. Brower Corp., 792
N.E.2d at 77.
[8] If a litigant files in a county that is not a preferred venue, the trial court must
transfer the case to a county of preferred venue if another litigant files a motion
to transfer venue. Id. However, if the claim was filed in a county of preferred
venue, no transfer of venue will be granted. Id.
[9] One place preferred venue lies is in a county where “the office or agency of a
defendant organization or individual to which the claim relates or out of which
the claim arose is located, if one or more such organizations or individuals are
included as defendants in the complaint[.]” T.R. 75(A)(4). O’Bryan presented
evidence Dr. Workman maintains multiple addresses in Marion County for
functions such as general billing, Medicare billing, registration with Indiana’s
Patient Compensation Fund, registration of his identifier under the National
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Opinion 49A04-1407-CT-314 | March 20, 2015 Page 3 of 4
Plan and Provider Enumeration System, and registration to prescribe controlled
substances. Thus the office “out of which the claim arose” is located in Marion
County.
[10] Based on that evidence, Marion County is a county of preferred venue under
Trial Rule 75(A)(4). As the trial court cannot transfer venue when a claim was
filed in a county of preferred venue, it did not abuse its discretion when it
denied Dr. Workman’s motion to transfer venue. Accordingly, we affirm.
[11] Affirmed.
Barnes, J., and Pyle, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Opinion 49A04-1407-CT-314 | March 20, 2015 Page 4 of 4