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. Hail to our Constitutional Law Expert in the Executive Office! “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

  2. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  3. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  4. 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.

  5. 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?

ADVERTISEMENT