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. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

  2. As an adoptive parent, I have to say this situation was as shameful as it gets. While the state government opens its wallet to the Simons and their friends, it denied payments to the most vulnerable in our state. Thanks Mitch!

  3. We as lawyers who have given up the range of First amendment freedom that other people possess, so that we can have a license to practice in the courts of the state and make gobs of money, that we agree to combat the hateful and bigoted discrimination enshrined in the law by democratic majorities, that Law Lord Posner has graciously explained for us....... We must now unhesitatingly condemn the sincerely held religious beliefs of religiously observant Catholics, Muslims, Christians, and Jewish persons alike who yet adhere to Scriptural exhortations concerning sodomites and catamites..... No tolerance will be extended to intolerance, and we must hate the haters most zealously! And in our public explanations of this constitutional garbledygook, when doing the balancing act, we must remember that the state always pushes its finger down on the individualism side of the scale at every turn and at every juncture no matter what the cost to society.....to elevate the values of a minority over the values of the majority is now the defining feature of American "Democracy..." we must remember our role in tricking Americans to think that this is desirable in spite of their own democratically expressed values being trashed. As a secular republic the United States might as well be officially atheist, religious people are now all bigots and will soon be treated with the same contempt that kluckers were in recent times..... The most important thing is that any source of moral authority besides the state be absolutely crushed.

  4. In my recent article in Indiana Lawyer, I noted that grass roots marketing -- reaching out and touching people -- is still one of the best forms of advertising today. It's often forgotten in the midst of all of today's "newer wave" marketing techniques. Shaking hands and kissing babies is what politicians have done for year and it still works. These are perfect examples of building goodwill. Kudos to these firms. Make "grass roots" an essential part of your marketing plan. Jon Quick QPRmarketing.com

  5. Hi, Who can I speak to regarding advertising today? Thanks, Gary

ADVERTISEMENT