Danielle Helms v. Max H. Rudicel, M.D., et al - 2/18/13

Back to TopPrintE-mail
Monday  February 18, 2013 
4:00 PM  EST

4 p.m. 18A04-1202-CT-70. Indiana Supreme Court courtroom. Danielle Helms sued her doctor, a nurse practitioner, an emergency physicians group, a clinic, and a hospital for malpractice related to treatment she received during her pregnancy.  A federal court found the doctor and clinic were federal employees and the federal tort claims limitation period had run.  The trial court determined that decision was res judicata as to Helms’s negligence claims related to the clinic or the doctor’s work there.  It also found the hospital was not vicariously liable for acts by the clinic or its employees, or for acts the doctor performed at the clinic.  It found the hospital might be vicariously liable for acts of the doctor and the nurse practitioner at the hospital, and it dismissed the clinic with prejudice.
Helms appeals, arguing the federal decision is not res judicata because that court did not address the issues before us, and the medical providers at the clinic were apparent agents of the hospital.  On cross appeal, the hospital argues it could not have vicarious liability because it told Helms its healthcare providers are independent contractors. 

Back to Events
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. Based on several recent Indy Star articles, I would agree that being a case worker would be really hard. You would see the worst of humanity on a daily basis; and when things go wrong guess who gets blamed??!! Not biological parent!! Best of luck to those who entered that line of work.

  2. I was looking through some of your blog posts on this internet site and I conceive this web site is rattling informative ! Keep on posting . dfkcfdkdgbekdffe

  3. Don't believe me, listen to Pacino: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6bC9w9cH-M

  4. Law school is social control the goal to produce a social product. As such it began after the Revolution and has nearly ruined us to this day: "“Scarcely any political question arises in the United States which is not resolved, sooner or later, into a judicial question. Hence all parties are obliged to borrow, in their daily controversies, the ideas, and even the language, peculiar to judicial proceedings. As most public men [i.e., politicians] are, or have been, legal practitioners, they introduce the customs and technicalities of their profession into the management of public affairs. The jury extends this habitude to all classes. The language of the law thus becomes, in some measure, a vulgar tongue; the spirit of the law, which is produced in the schools and courts of justice, gradually penetrates beyond their walls into the bosom of society, where it descends to the lowest classes, so that at last the whole people contract the habits and the tastes of the judicial magistrate.” ? Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

  5. Attorney? Really? Or is it former attorney? Status with the Ind St Ct? Status with federal court, with SCOTUS? This is a legal newspaper, or should I look elsewhere?

ADVERTISEMENT