ILNews

Court considers broadening emotional distress 'Bystander Rule'

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Focus


Parties are waiting for the Supreme Court's decision following arguments in November in a case where a trial court granted and the Court of Appeals affirmed an award for emotional distress above and beyond the capped amount in the Adult Wrongful Death Statute as defined by Indiana Code 34-23-1-2.

In Indiana Patient's Compensation Fund v. Gary Patrick, No. 49S02-0909-CV -402, Christopher Patrick, 31, was badly injured in a car accident Jan. 20, 2002. He went to the hospital for his injuries and was released the next day. His father, Gary Patrick, who lived with him, brought him home. Later that day, Gary saw that Christopher was vomiting blood so he called an ambulance.

Christopher lost consciousness shortly after the paramedics arrived and was pronounced dead on arrival at the hospital. It was later found that Christopher had an untreated ruptured colon from seatbelt trauma, which was the basis of Gary's claim for medical malpractice on behalf of his son.

Because Gary watched his son die, he filed a claim for emotional distress. Neither Christopher nor Gary was married, and the father and son were good friends.

Lawyers for the Indiana Patient's Compensation Fund argued "the trial court erred when it granted Patrick an independent claim for damages for emotional distress in conjunction with his claim under the Adult Wrongful Death Statute."

The Court of Appeals in May 2009 affirmed the Marion Circuit Court's opinion that under the Adult Wrongful Death Statute, the fund should pay Gary $300,000 "for the loss of Christopher's love and companionship, increased by $16,531.66 in medical, hospital, funeral and burial expenses."

While the fund did not disagree that this amount was appropriate, the fund did not agree with the trial court's award of $600,000 for Gary's emotional distress claim. The Court of Appeals affirmed this amount, agreeing with the trial court's conclusion "that Patrick's claim for emotional distress damages was independent of his claim for damages under the Adult Wrongful Death Statute."

How the fund works

In Indiana, when a claim for medical malpractice is above $250,000, the plaintiff can make a claim to the Indiana Department of Insurance for the amount above $250,000. A medical review panel of one attorney and three health-care providers will review the claim, according to Tina Korty of the Indiana Compensation Fund.

The patient's claim to the panel typically includes medical records and expert opinion about what happened to the patient. Then the panel determines if the health-care provider met the standard of care, failed to meet it, or if there isn't enough clear evidence to decide one way or the other, she said.

From there, the panel will determine how much if any money the patient can have from the fund. If the patient disagrees with the panel, then the patient can file suit in state court.

She said that as in this case, cases that come to the Patients Compensation Fund already received a settlement for $250,000 from the health-care provider. Because the healthcare provider already settled for $250,000, the fund would need to pay Gary the remaining $50,000, plus $16,531.66 in medical, hospital, funeral, and burial expenses.

Korty added that most health-care providers pay into the fund so they will not be at risk of losing personal assets in the case of a medical malpractice claim. It is common for hospitals in Indiana to require their health-care providers to participate in the fund, she said.

What's next

Bruce Kehoe, president of the Indiana Trial Lawyers Association and a plaintiff 's attorney with Wilson Kehoe & Winingham in Indianapolis, said this is "one of many cases that are of interest to medical malpractice practitioners and ITLA. ... It has the potential of affecting quite a number of adult wrongful death claims that occur as a result of medical malpractice."

While the damages are capped at $300,000 for the loss of love and affection of non-dependent family members, he said, "Many times the damages are well in excess of that in a fair evaluation. Here there are some facts that could support an emotional distress claim if indeed you have someone with true emotional distress from witnessing their loved one or family member suffering when he or she is going to die under unfavorable circumstances. ... But it doesn't fit every case. You have to have a true, legit emotional distress case."

Gary was able to receive an additional $16,531.66 in medical, hospital, funeral, and burial expenses because those are factored separately from the emotional distress claim capped at $300,000, according to the statute.

In its amicus brief, defense attorneys on behalf of the Defense Trial Counsel of Indiana wrote about how the decision could affect the prosecution and defense of medical malpractice claims.

"The Court of Appeals erred in concluding that the plaintiff may recover independently for his claims of negligent infliction of emotional distress following the death of his adult son. Its decision is in contravention of the recent decisions in Indiana Patient's Compensation Fund v. Butcher, 863 N.E. 2d 11 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), Goleski v. Fritz, 768 N.E. 2d 889 (Ind. 2002), and Indiana Patient's Compensation Fund v. Wolfe, 735 N.E. 2d 1187 (Ind. Ct App. 2000)," wrote Peter H. Pogue and Katherine G. Karres of Schultz & Pogue in Indianapolis, and James D. Johnson of Rudolph Fine Porter & Johnson in Evansville on behalf of the DTCI.

"Permitting separate claims for an actual patient and an independent claim for a family member will result in multiple claims, have an adverse impact on health care costs, and is contrary to the Medical Malpractice Act's statutory language. The Court of Appeals also impermissibly broadened the 'bystander rule' as it applies to negligent infliction of emotional distress claims and has opened the floodgates for claims by family members who deal with the aftermath despite the fact that the aftermath might be days after the malpractice occurs," the amicus brief stated.

Also, in its reply brief on petition to transfer, the fund's lawyers wrote, "The question of whether the (Medical Malpractice Act) allows a claim for bystander emotional distress has not been decided by this court and the time has come for that decision to be made."

While the attorneys for both sides told Indiana Lawyer they're waiting for the results and that it's an important case, none would comment on the record prior to the Supreme Court's decision.

Jerry A. Garau and Deborah K. Pennington of Garau Germano Hanley & Pennington in Indianapolis represented Gary; Anne Cowgur of Bingham McHale represented the Indiana Patient's Compensation Fund.

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 have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT