ILNews

COA clarifies emotional distress claims

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals used an opinion today to clarify how to treat an independent action for emotional distress brought either in combination with the Wrongful Death Statute or as part of the Medical Malpractice Act.

In Indiana Patient's Compensation Fund v. Gary Patrick, individually and as personal representative of the state of Christopher Patrick, deceased, No. 49A02-0807-CV-614, the Patient's Compensation Fund appealed the trial court's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and judgment in favor of Gary Patrick in his independent claim for damages for emotional distress in conjunction with the Adult Wrongful Death Statute.

Patrick's unmarried, adult son was severely injured in a car accident and discharged from the hospital despite pain and abdominal swelling. A day later, the son collapsed and died from his injuries in Patrick's home. The hospital and physician settled the estate's medical malpractice claim for an overall payout of $250,000. Patrick then filed his petition for payment of excess damages against the fund. The trial court concluded his claim was independent of his claim for damages under the Adult Wrongful Death Statute and awarded him $600,000.

The fund argued Patrick's claim is more properly characterized as derivative rather than independent and falls under the damage limitations of the Adult Wrongful Death Statute. It also argued the statute doesn't include a provision for the recovery of damages for emotional distress.

Noting the confusion in this area of law stems from the fact that damages for emotional distress are treated differently depending upon the vehicle in which they are instituted, the Court of Appeals examined previous caselaw to clarify claims for emotional distress brought as part of a Wrongful Death Statute or part of the Medical Malpractice Act.

Patrick asserted his claim arose from the negligence of the medical personnel treating his son in the context of medical malpractice. Since the son had a claim for medical malpractice, Patrick, as his father, is considered a patient who can have a claim, wrote Judge Patricia Riley. Having met the condition precedent for a cause of action for medical malpractice, the fact the son died as a result of the malpractice and that the claim had to be pursued under the Adult Wrongful Death Statute doesn't alter the existence or nature of the claim, wrote Judge Riley. The trial court was correct in characterizing Patrick's claim for damages as independent of and in addition to the adult wrongful death claim.

Patrick's assertion for damages for emotional distress as a bystander is pursuant to Groves v. Taylor, 729 N.E.2d 569 (Ind. 2000). Although Patrick wasn't present in the hospital when the medical malpractice occurred, he dealt with the aftermath of the malpractice, and was therefore able to bring an independent claim for damages for emotional distress in conjunction with his claim under the Adult Wrongful Death Statute, the judge 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. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT