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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT