GERTZ v. PORTER REGIONAL HOSPITAL (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] After a medical episode in 2009, Nichelle L. Gertz was treated at Porter Regional Hospital and incurred a medical bill of $20,628.88. In 2019, the Hospital sued Gertz to recover the remaining balance. The trial court found Gertz liable for the balance and ordered her to pay the remainder. Gertz now appeals, raising a variety of issues, most of which are deemed waived. She raises one issue which we review: whether the trial court erred in finding judgment in favor of the Hospital. Finding no error, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On December 30, 2009, Gertz suffered a seizure and received emergency medical treatment at Porter Regional Hospital, where she stayed for several days. At this time, Gertz did not have health insurance. The Hospital later sent her a billing statement showing the total amount due for services was $20,628.88. For the next eight years, Gertz made small monthly payments toward the bill. In 2017, she stopped payments entirely. Thereafter, the Hospital assigned the debt to Snow & Sauerteig, LLC, who attempted to perform collection efforts until Gertz sent a cease-and-desist notice.

[3] In July 2019, the Hospital filed suit against Gertz in Porter Superior Court, alleging Gertz had failed to pay her bill and requesting the court find Gertz liable for the remaining balance. In her answer, Gertz acknowledged she owed a “debt” to the Hospital but asserted she would not comply with collection efforts by Snow & Sauerteig and instead would only resume her monthly payments directly to the Hospital. App. Vol. II p. 21.

[4] Following these pleadings, a long period of unexplained inactivity occurred in the case. On July 25, 2024, the Hospital filed a motion requesting a trial date be set. A few days later, Gertz filed a motion to dismiss.¹ A case conference was held in November 2024, after which the court set a trial date for April 30, 2025. Prior to that date, on April 11, the Hospital filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 12(C), requesting the court find Gertz liable for the remainder of her bill. Gertz filed a response, arguing the Hospital's damage calculations were inaccurate.

[5] On April 22, the trial court issued an order granting the Hospital's motion for judgment on the pleadings “in relation to liability” and set a hearing to determine damages. Id. at 93 (emphasis removed). At the hearing, the Hospital presented evidence that, after the Hospital's self-pay deductions and Gertz's payments, there was a remaining total balance of $12,898.77. Gertz did not present any evidence. Following the hearing, the court issued an order for damages in the amount of $12,898.77. Gertz now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

I. Preservation of Claims for Appellate Review

[6] As an initial matter, many of the claims Gertz raises are not properly before us. First, in her “Statement of Issues,” Gertz raises the following: (1) whether the court erred in failing to “consider” her motion to dismiss and (2) whether her right to privacy was violated. Appellant's Br. pp. 4-5. But these arguments are never mentioned again. They are not supported by cogent reasoning or citation to the record or relevant legal authority. See Ind. Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a). Similarly, Gertz makes some references in her brief to Indiana Trial Rule 24 but never makes an analysis supported by cogent reasoning or citations. Our Supreme Court has made clear that if a party fails to make or develop an argument on appeal, that issue is waived, and thus we will not address these arguments. See Isom v. State, 170 N.E.3d 623, 637–39 (Ind. 2021) (repeatedly finding defendant's arguments waived for failure to provide cogent argument in violation of Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a)).

[7] Gertz next claims one of the hearings in the trial court was not properly transcribed or “administered by a judicial officer of the court.” Appellant's Br. p. 34 (capitalization and boldface omitted). She also alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and that her husband should have been joined as a party under Indiana Trial Rule 19. However, these issues were not presented to the trial court and thus are not properly before us. See Dedelow v. Pucalik, 801 N.E.2d 178, 183 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (“A party generally waives appellate review of an issue or argument unless that party presented that issue or argument before the trial court.”)

[8] Finally, in her reply brief, Gertz asserts the following claims for the first time: (1) the Hospital did not attempt to mediate the case prior to transferring the debt to a third-party collection agency, (2) the trial court did not provide sufficient notice when vacating a hearing, and (3) the Hospital filed suit after the statute of limitations had expired. Not only were these claims not presented to the trial court, but Gertz did not assert them until her reply brief. As such, they are waived for our review. See id.; Felsher v. Univ. of Evansville, 755 N.E.2d 589, 593 (Ind. 2001) (noting a party may not raise an issue for the first time in his or her reply brief); see also Ind. Appellate Rule 46(C) (“No new issues shall be raised in the reply brief.”).

[9] We note Gertz appeared before the trial court and in this appeal pro se. “It is well settled that pro se litigants are held to the same standards as licensed attorneys, and thus they are required to follow procedural rules.” Martin v. Hunt, 130 N.E.3d 135, 136 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). Failure to comply with the Rules of Appellate Procedure does not necessarily result in waiver of a claim. Id. at 137. However, the violations here substantially impede our review of the issues alleged. Therefore, waiver is appropriate, see id., and we address only Gertz's argument regarding the trial court's finding of liability.

II. Judgment for Motion on the Pleadings

[10] Gertz contends that the trial court erred in granting the Hospital's motion for judgment on the pleadings. Judgment on the pleadings is available where it is clear from the face of the pleadings that one party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law. Ind. Trial Rule 12(C); ESPN, Inc. v. Univ. of Notre Dame Police Dep't, 62 N.E.3d 1192, 1195 (Ind. 2016). Pleadings consist of a complaint and an answer, a reply to a counterclaim, an answer to a cross-claim, a third-party complaint, an answer to a third-party complaint, and any written instruments attached to a pleading. Hendricks Cty. v. Green, 120 N.E.3d 1118, 1122 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), trans. denied. We review the trial court's ruling on a motion for judgment on the pleadings de novo. ESPN, 62 N.E.3d at 1195. Our review is confined to the pleadings, accepting well-pleaded material facts in the complaint as true. Id.

[11] Here, the trial court granted the Hospital's motion for judgment on the pleadings as to Gertz's liability. We see no error in that determination, given Gertz admitted in her answer that she owed a debt to the Hospital and she did not deny liability in her response to the motion for judgment. Nor does Gertz now challenge her liability. Rather, her only argument on appeal relates to the calculation of damages. See Appellant's Br. p. 29. Given the pleadings, the trial court did not err in granting the Hospital's motion for judgment as to Gertz's liability.

[12] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   It does not appear the trial court ever ruled on Gertz's motion to dismiss.

Scheele, Judge.

Brown, J., and Felix, J., concur.