ILNews

Court upholds damages award

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court decision that excluded arguments and evidence from the Indiana Patient's Compensation Fund relating to the survival rate of the decedent because their argument regarded liability, which had already been established through a settlement.

In Jim Atterholt, Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Insurance as Administrator of the Indiana Patient's Compensation Fund v. Geneva Herbst, personal representative of the estate of Jeffrey A. Herbst, No. 49A04-0702-CV-106, the Indiana Patient's Compensation Fund appealed the grant of partial summary judgment and final judgment in favor of the estate and an award of $1 million from the fund.

Jeffrey went to his primary care doctor complaining of numbness in his hands, and his doctor said he had carpal tunnel syndrome. A few days later, Jeffrey went back to the doctor with fever, nausea, and decreased urine output, which his doctor said was pneumonia and sent him to the hospital. Once admitted, Jeffrey's condition deteriorated rapidly and he died within two hours of being admitted.

His estate brought a medical malpractice claim against his doctor, the doctor's employer, and the hospital for his wrongful death. The estate settled its claim with all of the health care providers for $187,000.

The estate also filed a petition for damages from the fund, seeking $1 million in excess damages. The estate moved for summary judgment, seeking a determination from the trial court that it would only consider the amount of damages and not whether the health care providers were liable. The fund countered it should be allowed to offer evidence relevant to the issue of the increase risk of injury or death attributable to the health care providers. The trial court granted partial summary judgment in favor of the estate on this issue.

At trial, the fund had an expert witness testify that Jeffrey would not have survived hospitalization and had a less than a 10 percent chance of surviving even absent any negligence. The trial court excluded this testimony and awarded the estate $1 million from the fund.

The fund appealed, arguing the trial court erred in granting partial summary judgment in favor of the estate and erred in excluding evidence from its expert witness.

The fund believed it should have been allowed to show Jeffrey's survival chances and the estate is only allowed to claim a portion of the damages attributable to the chance of survival due to the malpractice. The argument involves "loss of chance," which was first addressed by the Indiana Supreme Court.

In Mayhue v. Sparkman, 653 N.E. 2d 1384 (Ind. 1995), the Indiana Supreme Court looked to Section 323 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts (1965) for what to do in a situation where a patient has a less than 50 percent chance of survival, but a doctor's negligence deprives them of any chance. Section 323 permits recovery from a defendant whose negligence significantly increases the probability of harm and allows for a cause of action where traditional causation standards may not be satisfied, wrote Judge Paul Mathias.

The fund's Section 323 argument regards liability, not the amount of damages. While Section 323 explains how to calculate the amount of damages in a case falling within the section, it is not applicable in this case. The settlement between the estate and the health care providers established the health care providers' liability and established proximate cause.

"Where proximate cause is established by operation of the settlement, the claimant need not resort to Section 323 to recover, and the Fund cannot seek to diminish its liability by making an argument based upon Section 323," he wrote.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT