ILNews

Court finds facilities have immunity in suit over detention

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The three unidentified entities involved in the detention of a Bloomington man for several days after he refused in-patient treatment for alcoholism are entitled to immunity in his lawsuit alleging medical malpractice, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday.

Thomas and Cathy Haggerty filed the lawsuit against the entities identified by the court as Anonymous Party 1, 2 and 3 after Thomas Haggerty refused to stay at the AP1 facility and threatened to walk home to Bloomington from Indianapolis on a cold winter night. Haggerty had been hospitalized for complications due to alcoholism and was to receive in-patient treatment in Indianapolis. He did not want to stay, which led to AP2 being called. AP2, a nearby medical facility, picked up Haggerty and detained him. AP3, a corporate entity related to AP2, was also named in the Haggertys’ proposed complaint for medical malpractice and subsequent lawsuit.

All three parties argued they were immune from liability under I.C. 12-26-2-6, which grants immunity to those who assist or participate in proceedings for an individual’s detention or commitment. The trial court granted AP1’s motion for summary judgment, but denied it related to the other parties. The Haggertys appealed the grant of summary judgment. AP2 and AP3 filed a belated motion to certify the trial court’s order for interlocutory appeal. The trial court granted the belated motion, and the COA accepted jurisdiction over the combined appeal.

The Haggertys argued that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to rule on the issue of immunity because that issue was reserved for the medical review panel, as well as that none of the anonymous parties are entitled to immunity under Indiana law because they violated Haggerty’s personal or civil rights.

The COA found the trial court had jurisdiction to rule on the issue of immunity because it is an affirmative defense.

“The trial court did not need an expert opinion to determine whether the anonymous parties could claim immunity under Section 12-26-2-6; this is a legal determination that the court was capable of making on its own,” Judge Nancy Vaidik wrote.

All three judges on the panel agreed AP1 is entitled to immunity. Vaidik and Judge Ezra Friedlander found AP2 and AP3 are entitled to immunity and reversed the denial of their motions for summary judgment.

But Judge John Baker dissented from his colleagues’ decision to grant summary judgment for AP2 and AP3 on the immunity issue. Baker believed Haggerty’s testimony that he was placed in a small bathroom for four hours before being admitted to AP2 creates a genuine issue of material fact. This is the type of issue the medical review panel should assess to determine whether the actions of AP2 were appropriate, he wrote.

The case is Thomas Haggerty and Cathy Haggerty v. Anonymous Party 1, Anonymous Party 2, and Anonymous Party 3, 53A01-1210-CT-472.

 

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. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT