a wrongful death action than Illinois law. Nonetheless, the Seventh Circuit concluded that the factual allegations in the complaint adequately stated a claim under Indiana law and was not subject to dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) simply because it incorrectly cited Illinois law as the basis for the suit. Daniels, 965 F.2d at 382. The court specifically held that under either Indiana or federal jurisprudence, the erroneous invocation of Illinois law did not “affect the gravamen of [the] complaint.” Id. The court went so far as to hold that “ ‘specifying an incorrect theory is not fatal’ ” to a complaint. Id. at 381 (quoting Bartholet v. Reishauer A.G., 953 F.2d 1073, 1078 (7th Cir.1992)); see also Tolle v. Carroll Touch, Inc., 977 F.2d 1129, 1134 (7th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). Here, Dr. Graves’s failure to mention
holding that the plaintiffs misconceived legal theory did not preclude it from obtaining relief under another theory holding that the failure to draw the district courts attention to an applicable legal theory waives pursuit of that theory in this court holding a complaint sufficiently raises a claim even if it points to no legal theory or even if it points to the wrong legal theory as a basis for that claim holding that if basis described the parties were therefore aware of plaintiffs legal theory even where the theory was mischaracterized citation omitted holding that a trial courts ruling on a motion for new trial will be upheld if it is correct on any applicable legal theory even if the court articulated an invalid basis