ILNews

DTCI: Medical Negligence vs. Premises Liability

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

DTCI murphy koenemanWhen a patient is harmed during a medical procedure, a patient may elect to file a medical negligence claim against his physician and the health care facility in which the procedure occurred. However, when a patient is harmed during a hospitalization, should the claim still be pursued as one of medical negligence or is it more appropriately a premises liability claim?

Indiana courts have been asked to determine the substance and resulting remedies of these claims, which decisions have been as varied as the unique factual circumstances presented to the courts. What about a patient who slips and falls in the hospital hallway; a patient who falls to the floor when a hospital bed breaks; or a patient who physically attacks or engages in an unwanted sexual encounter with another patient? How should these claims be pursued?

Whether a claim sounds in medical negligence or premises liability has far-reaching implications for the attorney. Which insurance carrier and insurance coverage is applicable: the hospital’s general liability coverage or its medical malpractice insurance? Procedurally, should the case proceed through the medical review panel process pursuant to the requirements of Indiana’s Medical Malpractice Act or can it be filed directly in state court as an ordinary negligence claim? Are there any limits to the amount of recoverable damages? If the claim is properly a medical negligence claim, then the Medical Malpractice Act limits recoverable damages. With an ordinary negligence claim, there is no ceiling on a potential judgment and potential liability.

The substance of the claim also necessarily affects the type of discovery that can and should be conducted. If a medical negligence claim, then the injured patient’s medical records are relevant. If a premises liability claim or failure to protect a patient from another patient’s attack, then do the nonparty patient’s records become relevant; and if so, are they appropriately discoverable under HIPAA? Knowing whether you are defending a medical malpractice claim or a premises liability claim affects every other decision in the litigation, which makes it imperative to resolve the answer as soon as possible.

Indiana courts have given us no definitive answer yet as to whether any given set of facts will be treated as a medical negligence claim or as a premises liability claim. The Indiana Supreme Court’s recent decision in McSwane v. Bloomington Hospital, 916 N.E. 2d 906 (2009), refused to extend a hospital’s duty of care to an off-premises attack of a patient. However, when the attack occurs on hospital premises, aren’t the hospital staff’s decisions as to where to house the patient, what medications to give the patient, and what level of supervision or protection to give to a patient medical decisions? The Medical Malpractice Act defines health care as decisions with respect to a patient’s treatment or confinement, which will be treated as a medical negligence claim. Ind. Code § 34-18-2-13. On the other hand, the Indiana Court of Appeals has held that the Medical Malpractice Act was designed to exclude conduct “unrelated to the promotion of a patient’s health or the provider’s exercise of professional expertise, skill, or judgment.” Murphy v. Mortell, 684 N.E.2d 1185, 1188 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997).

Which decisions regarding patient care and safety are medical decisions? As defense lawyers, our argument is that all decisions regarding a patient’s care and safety that occur on hospital premises are necessarily medical decisions. And with that determination, the claim can be pursued as a medical negligence claim with all of the duties, protections, and liability limitations afforded a hospital or health care facility by the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act.•

__________

Mr. Murphy and Ms. Koeneman are partners with the Murphy Law Group in Fort Wayne, Indiana. Mr. Murphy is a member of the Board of Directors of DTCI. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors.

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Call it unauthorized law if you must, a regulatory wrong, but it was fraud and theft well beyond that, a seeming crime! "In three specific cases, the hearing officer found that Westerfield did little to no work for her clients but only issued a partial refund or no refund at all." That is theft by deception, folks. "In its decision to suspend Westerfield, the Supreme Court noted that she already had a long disciplinary history dating back to 1996 and had previously been suspended in 2004 and indefinitely suspended in 2005. She was reinstated in 2009 after finally giving the commission a response to the grievance for which she was suspended in 2004." WOW -- was the Indiana Supreme Court complicit in her fraud? Talk about being on notice of a real bad actor .... "Further, the justices noted that during her testimony, Westerfield was “disingenuous and evasive” about her relationship with Tope and attempted to distance herself from him. They also wrote that other aggravating factors existed in Westerfield’s case, such as her lack of remorse." WOW, and yet she only got 18 months on the bench, and if she shows up and cries for them in a year and a half, and pays money to JLAP for group therapy ... back in to ride roughshod over hapless clients (or are they "marks") once again! Aint Hoosier lawyering a great money making adventure!!! Just live for the bucks, even if filthy lucre, and come out a-ok. ME on the other hand??? Lifetime banishment for blowing the whistle on unconstitutional governance. Yes, had I ripped off clients or had ANY disciplinary history for doing that I would have fared better, most likely, as that it would have revealed me motivated by Mammon and not Faith. Check it out if you doubt my reading of this, compare and contrast the above 18 months with my lifetime banishment from court, see appendix for Bar Examiners report which the ISC adopted without substantive review: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS

  2. Wow, over a quarter million dollars? That is a a lot of commissary money! Over what time frame? Years I would guess. Anyone ever try to blow the whistle? Probably not, since most Hoosiers who take notice of such things realize that Hoosier whistleblowers are almost always pilloried. If someone did blow the whistle, they were likely fired. The persecution of whistleblowers is a sure sign of far too much government corruption. Details of my own personal experience at the top of Hoosier governance available upon request ... maybe a "fake news" media outlet will have the courage to tell the stories of Hoosier whistleblowers that the "real" Hoosier media (cough) will not deign to touch. (They are part of the problem.)

  3. So if I am reading it right, only if and when African American college students agree to receive checks labeling them as "Negroes" do they receive aid from the UNCF or the Quaker's Educational Fund? In other words, to borrow from the Indiana Appellate Court, "the [nonprofit] supposed to be [their] advocate, refers to [students] in a racially offensive manner. While there is no evidence that [the nonprofits] intended harm to [African American students], the harm was nonetheless inflicted. [Black students are] presented to [academia and future employers] in a racially offensive manner. For these reasons, [such] performance [is] deficient and also prejudice[ial]." Maybe even DEPLORABLE???

  4. I'm the poor soul who spent over 10 years in prison with many many other prisoners trying to kill me for being charged with a sex offense THAT I DID NOT COMMIT i was in jail for a battery charge for helping a friend leave a boyfriend who beat her I've been saying for over 28 years that i did not and would never hurt a child like that mine or anybody's child but NOBODY wants to believe that i might not be guilty of this horrible crime or think that when i say that ALL the paperwork concerning my conviction has strangely DISAPPEARED or even when the long beach judge re-sentenced me over 14 months on a already filed plea bargain out of another districts court then had it filed under a fake name so i could not find while trying to fight my conviction on appeal in a nut shell people are ALWAYS quick to believe the worst about some one well I DID NOT HURT ANY CHILD EVER IN MY LIFE AND HAVE SAID THIS FOR ALMOST 30 YEARS please if anybody can me get some kind of justice it would be greatly appreciated respectfully written wrongly accused Brian Valenti

  5. A high ranking Indiana supreme Court operative caught red handed leading a group using the uber offensive N word! She must denounce or be denounced! (Or not since she is an insider ... rules do not apply to them). Evidence here: http://m.indianacompanies.us/friends-educational-fund-for-negroes.364110.company.v2#top_info

ADVERTISEMENT