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

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. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT