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

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. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  2. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  3. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  4. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  5. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

ADVERTISEMENT