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. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT