id	author	title	date	pages	extension	mime	words	sentence	flesch	summary	cache	txt
ihlr-16582	Eggeson, Jr., Neal F.	Snatching Confusion from the Jaws of Clarity: The Puzzling Evolution of the Discovery Rule Vis-a-vis Indiana's Medical Malpractice Statute of Limitations	2011	46	.pdf	application/pdf	20919	1081	59	See also Booth v. Wiley, 839 N.E.2d 1168, 1175 (Ind. 2005) (knowledge ofserious vision problems and probable perma­ nent vision impairment insufficient; rather, date physician opined ''that the Lasik surgery should not have been performed because of his preexisting cataracts and glaucoma served as trigger); Van Dusen, 712 N.E.2d at 494, 499-500 (of multiple events which occurred on trigger date, court did not rely on it being date doctor diagnosed incurable prostate cancer; nor did court rely on it being date plaintiff voiced suspicion of malpractice; rather, court relied on it being date on which doctor opined that biopsy slides may have been misread). Cf Palmer v. Gorecki, 844 N.E.2d at 152, 155 (declining to select date plaintiff correctly diagnosed with vestibular toxicity as trigger); Levy v. Newell, 822 N.E.2d 234, 238-39 (Ind. Ct.	cache/ihlr-16582.pdf	txt/ihlr-16582.txt