ILNews

Court rules on medical malpractice excess damages issue

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled on an issue of first impression, adopting recent guidance from the state’s highest court to decide that evidence relating to medical malpractice liability can be introduced in determining damages even after someone enters into a settlement with the healthcare provider on that underlying claim.

A unanimous decision came in a Marion Superior suit today in Stephen W. Robertson, Indiana Commissioner of Insurance as Administrator of the Indiana Patient’s Compensation Fund, et al. v. B.O., a minor, by his parents and next friends, Lisa and Kevin C. Ort, No. 49A04-1009-CT-528.

The case stems from a February 2004 complaint with the state’s Department of Insurance under the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act, alleging negligence by Lutheran Hospital of Indiana during the labor and delivery of a child, B.O., born in February 2007. The suit claimed the hospital failed to adequately monitor the baby’s condition and didn’t timely respond to persistent changes in his fetal heart rate that indicated fetal distress. Though not diagnosed with any abnormalities after his birth or during the first years of his life, at age 4 he was diagnosed with a mild form of cerebral palsy. The case alleged the diagnosis was a result of the negligence that occurred at birth.

A medical review panel found Lutheran Hospital hadn’t met the standard of care, but determined the “conduct complained of was not a factor of the resultant damages.” The hospital settled with B.O. in October 2006 under an agreement that allowed access to the Patient Compensation Fund – which at the time allowed for a $650,000 cap from the fund. B.O. filed this action in June 2007 seeking that statutory maximum in excess damages, and the fund brought in expert witnesses to argue that the birth conduct wasn’t related to the cerebral palsy. Both parties disputed whether that should be allowed in the damages portion, since the underlying medical malpractice claim had been settled on liability.

A Marion Superior judge in April 2010 granted partial summary judgment for B.O. on grounds that the fund’s expert witness testimony couldn’t be introduced. But on interlocutory appeal, the Court of Appeals panel reversed that ruling and remanded for further proceedings based on state statute and new guidance from the Indiana Supreme Court in recent years.

The state’s Medical Malpractice Act detailed in Indiana Code 34-18-15-3 says in part that the court can consider “the liability from the health care provider’s liability as admitted and established” when approving a settlement or determining any amount to be paid from the patient’s compensation fund.

The court cited Atterholt v. Herbst, 907 N.E.2d 528 (Ind. 2009), which re-evaluated some of the precedent on this topic and held that the fund may introduce evidence of a claimant’s pre-existing risk of harm if it’s relevant to establishing the amount of damages – “even if it is also relevant to the liability issues that are foreclosed by the judgment or settlement.”

The panel noted that health care providers in Indiana may settle medical malpractice claims for a multitude of reasons, such as concerns over the complexity of the case that might make it difficult for a jury to understand the issues or the costs of defending a malpractice action, and that can’t be held against them when the damages aspect is being considered.

“Holding otherwise would force health care providers to litigate the compensable nature and extent of the alleged injury in the underlying action or forfeit the Fund’s ability to present such evidence in calculating the amount of excess damages, if any, recoverable in the secondary action against the Fund,” the court wrote.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • clinical negligence claim
    It is true that very less percentage of people are actually able to get clinical negligence claim successfully completed because of the lack of knowledge regarding the pre-requisites of filing such claims. Therefore, it is always advised to hire some trustworthy professionally that can handle your case with perfection.

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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT