ILNews

COA refuses to rule defendants get blanket immunity

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed that an arrestee brought to the hospital by police who was forced to have a catheter to obtain a urine sample can’t sue the health-care providers under the Medical Malpractice Act. The appellate judges also ruled the health-care providers weren’t entitled to blanket immunity, based on Indiana Code Section 9-30-6-6.

Larz Elliott was taken to Rush Memorial Hospital by a deputy sheriff for a blood sample and urine sample. The deputy said he had a court order, but produced no written authorization. Elliot was handcuffed to a bed and had his pants forcibly removed when he couldn’t produce the urine sample and was catheterized.

He filed a proposed medical malpractice complaint against the hospital and medical staff that performed the catheterization alleging battery and negligence. The trial court found Elliot hadn’t stated any claims that required evaluation and that the defendants were immune from liability under I.C. Section 9-30-6-6.

In Larz A. Elliott v. Rush Memorial Hospital, Carrie Tressler, R.N., Philip Kingma, M.D., No. 70A01-0911-CV-533, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s ruling because Elliot’s claims fall outside the act. Caselaw has held the act requires a person’s medical treatment was sought out or was necessary for the person’s own benefit. Elliot’s catheterization wasn’t for his own medical benefit, nor was it related to any treatment he needed for disease or injury. It was carried out solely for law enforcement purposes, wrote Judge Michael Barnes. He wasn’t a “patient” of the defendants for purposes of the act.

The Court of Appeals also declined to endorse a broad sweep of immunity for health-care providers under I.C. Section 9-30-6-6, as the trial court ruled. The statue requires that officers have certified in writing probable cause to get the sample and that not more than reasonable force be used to obtain the sample. The statute also says that the sample shall be taken in a medically accepted manner.

Indiana courts haven’t discussed whether these two subsections place limitations on when health-care workers can claim immunity for getting a bodily sample at an officer’s request. Addressing a similar issue involving Indiana’s Shoplifting Detention Act, the appellate court decided that I.C. Section 9-30-6-6’s grant of immunity doesn’t apply to samples that aren’t obtained in accordance with all of the statute’s provisions.

The catheterization also presents legitimate questions of fact as to whether forced catheterization is a “medically acceptable manner” to get a sample or if it’s unreasonable force in this situation. There are medical risks associated with using a catheter.

“The position that the trial court and the Defendants offer is that once a police officer requests a health care provider to obtain a bodily substance sample from someone, the health care provider has no choice but to comply, regardless of the circumstances,” wrote Judge Barnes. “Particularly at this point in the litigation, we will not endorse such a broad sweep of immunity.”


 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

  2. As an adoptive parent, I have to say this situation was as shameful as it gets. While the state government opens its wallet to the Simons and their friends, it denied payments to the most vulnerable in our state. Thanks Mitch!

  3. We as lawyers who have given up the range of First amendment freedom that other people possess, so that we can have a license to practice in the courts of the state and make gobs of money, that we agree to combat the hateful and bigoted discrimination enshrined in the law by democratic majorities, that Law Lord Posner has graciously explained for us....... We must now unhesitatingly condemn the sincerely held religious beliefs of religiously observant Catholics, Muslims, Christians, and Jewish persons alike who yet adhere to Scriptural exhortations concerning sodomites and catamites..... No tolerance will be extended to intolerance, and we must hate the haters most zealously! And in our public explanations of this constitutional garbledygook, when doing the balancing act, we must remember that the state always pushes its finger down on the individualism side of the scale at every turn and at every juncture no matter what the cost to society.....to elevate the values of a minority over the values of the majority is now the defining feature of American "Democracy..." we must remember our role in tricking Americans to think that this is desirable in spite of their own democratically expressed values being trashed. As a secular republic the United States might as well be officially atheist, religious people are now all bigots and will soon be treated with the same contempt that kluckers were in recent times..... The most important thing is that any source of moral authority besides the state be absolutely crushed.

  4. In my recent article in Indiana Lawyer, I noted that grass roots marketing -- reaching out and touching people -- is still one of the best forms of advertising today. It's often forgotten in the midst of all of today's "newer wave" marketing techniques. Shaking hands and kissing babies is what politicians have done for year and it still works. These are perfect examples of building goodwill. Kudos to these firms. Make "grass roots" an essential part of your marketing plan. Jon Quick QPRmarketing.com

  5. Hi, Who can I speak to regarding advertising today? Thanks, Gary

ADVERTISEMENT