ILNews

Court clarifies ruling on medical review panel process

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has clarified one of its earlier rulings about when nurses can participate in medical malpractice actions and what evidentiary rules allow in the review panel process if the chairperson reneges on an agreement that a particular individual wouldn’t participate.

In Doe Corp., an Anonymous Health Care Provider, v. Lolita C. Honore , No. 49A05-1007-MI-408, the appellate court revisited and clarified its ruling issued April 27.

The case involves a woman residing at an unnamed Hamilton County health care facility from December 2002 until her death in April 2004. Her estate filed a complaint with the Indiana Department of Insurance alleging a breach in the reasonable standard of medical and nursing care while the woman was there, and in 2007 that case went before a Medical Review Panel as outlined in the Medical Malpractice Act.

One member of that review panel was a nurse, and the panel chair agreed that the nurse wouldn’t be able to offer any medical causation opinions reserved by law for physicians. But the chairman went against that agreement in 2009 and included the nurse in a written opinion about causation. That opinion found Doe Corp. failed to meet the reasonable standard of care.

Doe asked the trial court to make a preliminary determination of law regarding the validity of the review panel’s decision, which included the nurse member despite the chair’s previous agreement based on statute. The trial court dismissed Doe’s motion on the grounds it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, because a similar action was pending in another state court. Doe appealed.

The Court of Appeals in April determined the trial court did have subject matter jurisdiction on the issue of enforcing the requirement that the review panel chair carry out his statutory duties, and the appellate panel determined the trial judge had erred by dismissing the motion for PDL on Trial Rule 12(B)(8) grounds.

In this rehearing ruling, the appellate court allowed the Indiana Trial Lawyers Association to participate and revisited the case for the limited purpose of clarifying its holding about the role of the Rules of Evidence in the Medical Review Panel process.

Registered nurses or licensed practical nurses are included within the statutory definition of health care providers under the MMA able to be chosen as members of any medical review panel, the appellate court said.

“To be clear, no case has limited a nurse’s right to opine on the issue of causation as an MRP member,” Judge Ezra Friedlander wrote. “Rather, the limitation has been placed upon the nurse’s ability to testify at the summary judgment stage or trial. That limitation on the nurse’s testimony regarding causation comes from Evidentiary Rule 702 because of the ‘significant difference in the education, training, and authority to diagnose and treat diseases between physicians and nurses.’”

The appeals court noted, “the portion of our statement for ‘allowing the nurse to opine on causation’ should have been further qualified by the phrase ‘in contravention of the parties’ agreement and the MRP Chair’s representations to them in that regard.’”

The parties and the chair had agreed not to include the nurse member in the written opinion regarding causation, the appeals court wrote. But to Doe’s surprise, that didn’t happen.

“Absent statutory authority for judicial enforcement of such agreements, there are nonetheless due process concerns that may warrant a sanction under I.C. 34-18-10-23 for the MRP Chair’s failure to abide by the agreement,” the appeals court wrote. “We believe that the trial court should be afforded the opportunity to consider the issue of whether a sanction is warranted here for the MRP Chair’s failure to abide by the parties’ agreement and remand for a determination of that issue.”

 

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. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT