ILNews

Court: Medical record loss is negligence

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

If a hospital or provider loses records so that a patient can't pursue a medical malpractice case, the Indiana Court of Appeals says state law allows that person to pursue a separate civil action for spoliation of evidence.

Applying 3-year-old precedent from the Indiana Supreme Court and additional guidance offered by the highest court in Illinois, a three-judge appellate panel has determined a private cause of action is established under Indiana Code 16-39-7-1 about the consequences of violating the state's medical record retention statute. The unanimous decision comes in Howard Regional Health System, et al. v. Jacob Z. Gordon b/n/f Lisa Gordon, No. 34A02-0902-CV-179.

The case involves multiple disorders that Jacob Gordon suffers from that could have been caused by substandard medical care at the time of his birth in 1999. His mother, Lisa, filed a medical malpractice action and asked for evidence from the hospital where her son was born, but Howard Community Hospital responded 18 months later that some of the nurse's narrative notes, labor records, and initial fetal data information couldn't be located. A neonatal doctor later determined he couldn't provide an opinion about potential medical malpractice because of the missing evidence.

Gordon asked for partial summary judgment about whether the hospital had a duty to preserve the evidence, whether it breached that duty, and whether that breach made it impossible to pursue a separate med mal action.

The Court of Appeals found the spoliation of evidence claim is outside the scope of the state's Medical Malpractice Act and the trial court had jurisdiction to hear the case. The panel relied on H.D. v. BHC Meadows Hosp. Inc., 884 N.E.2d 849 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008), that determined a health-care provider's negligent or reckless dissemination of a patient's confidential information to the general public wasn't within the boundaries of the Medical Malpractice Act.

On the availability of a private right of action for loss of medical records, the appellate panel held that a hospital is required by Indiana Code § 16-39-7-1 to maintain its health records for seven years and if a hospital violates that statute, it commits negligence per se and a private action is available.

Relying largely on the Indiana Supreme Court decision of Kho v. Pennington, 875 N.E. 2d 208 (Ind. 2007), the appellate panel determined violating the statute creates a private cause of action and rejected the hospital argument about an administrative disciplinary remedy preventing the separate claim.

"It is apparent in the case before us that the statutory sanctions involving 'the provider's licensure, registration, or certification' ... would similarly be 'wholly ineffectual' to remedy the harm Gordon would suffer if the loss of records made it impossible to bring a malpractice action," Judge Melissa May wrote, citing a similar Illinois Supreme Court ruling from 1992.

Aside from those issues, the Court of Appeals also addressed the availability of third-party spoliation claims and that summary judgment was appropriate in this case because Gordon had established that the record loss was the proximate cause of the harm alleged.

Indianapolis attorney John Muller with Montross Miller Muller Mendelson & Kennedy said he was pleased with the decision for his client, while Indianapolis attorney Bryan Babb representing the hospital said a transfer petition to the Indiana Supreme Court will likely be filed in the case.

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. Bob Leonard killed two people named Jennifer and Dion Longworth. There were no Smiths involved.

  2. Being on this journey from the beginning has convinced me the justice system really doesn't care about the welfare of the child. The trial court judge knew the child belonged with the mother. The father having total disregard for the rules of the court. Not only did this cost the mother and child valuable time together but thousands in legal fees. When the child was with the father the mother paid her child support. When the child was finally with the right parent somehow the father got away without having to pay one penny of child support. He had to be in control. Since he withheld all information regarding the child's welfare he put her in harms way. Mother took the child to the doctor when she got sick and was totally embarrassed she knew nothing regarding the medical information especially the allergies, The mother texted the father (from the doctors office) and he replied call his attorney. To me this doesn't seem like a concerned father. Seeing the child upset when she had to go back to the father. What upset me the most was finding out the child sleeps with him. Sometimes in the nude. Maybe I don't understand all the rules of the law but I thought this was also morally wrong. A concerned parent would allow the child to finish the school year. Say goodbye to her friends. It saddens me to know the child will not have contact with the sisters, aunts, uncles and the 87 year old grandfather. He didn't allow it before. Only the mother is allowed to talk to the child. I don't think now will be any different. I hope the decision the courts made would've been the same one if this was a member of their family. Someday this child will end up in therapy if allowed to remain with the father.

  3. Ok attorney Straw ... if that be a good idea ... And I am not saying it is ... but if it were ... would that be ripe prior to her suffering an embarrassing remand from the Seventh? Seems more than a tad premature here soldier. One putting on the armor should not boast liked one taking it off.

  4. The judge thinks that she is so cute to deny jurisdiction, but without jurisdiction, she loses her immunity. She did not give me any due process hearing or any discovery, like the Middlesex case provided for that lawyer. Because she has refused to protect me and she has no immunity because she rejected jurisdiction, I am now suing her in her district.

  5. Sam Bradbury was never a resident of Lafayette he lived in rural Tippecanoe County, Thats an error.

ADVERTISEMENT