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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT