ILNews

High court rules on recovery issue

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Under the statute governing the wrongful death of an unmarried adult with no dependents, the amount recoverable for reasonable medical and hospital expenses necessitated by the alleged wrongful conduct is the total amount ultimately accepted after contractual arrangements with an insurer, Medicare, or Medicaid, and not the total of the charges billed, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled today.

In James Butler as personal representative of the Estate of Nondis Jane Butler v. Indiana Department of Insurance as Administrator of the Patient's Compensation Fund, and Clarian Health Partners, Inc., No. 49S05-0805-CV-216, the Supreme Court addressed only the first contention of the estate's appeal of summary judgment entered in favor of the Indiana Department of Insurance: recovery for reasonable and necessary medical expenses under the applicable wrongful death statute was erroneously limited to the amounts paid and should have included the total amounts billed.

Nondis Jane Butler, an unmarried adult, initiated a medical negligence claim against Clarian Health Partners and other individual health care providers. She died before her claim was resolved and left no dependents. Her estate and Clarian settled; the estate was able to proceed for the balance of its claim for damages against the Indiana Patient's Compensation Fund.

The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of the fund, ruling the estate isn't entitled to recover money that is the difference between the total of medical bills received and the amounts actually paid and accepted as full satisfaction by the medical providers.

The Supreme Court unanimously found the language of Indiana Code Section 34-23-1-2(c)(3)(A) to be unambiguous, which specifies that damages are allowable for reasonable medical, hospital, funeral, and burial expenses necessitated by the wrongful conduct that caused the death.

The open-ended language in subsection (c)(3) permits recovery of damages other than those designated in subsection (c)(3)(A) and (c)(3)(B), but doesn't direct the expansion of the circumscribed damages defined with in (A) and (B), wrote Justice Brent Dickson.

"We hold that, with respect to damages pursuant to Indiana Code § 34-23-1-2(c)(3)(A), when medical providers provide statements of charges for health care services to the decedent but thereafter accept a reduced amount adjusted due to contractual arrangements with the insurers or government benefit providers, in full satisfaction the charges, the amount recoverable under the statute for the '[r]easonable medical . . . expenses necessitated' by the wrongful act is the portion of the billed charges ultimately accepted pursuant to such contractual adjustments," wrote Justice Dickson.

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. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  2. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

  3. I am one of Steele's victims and was taken for $6,000. I want my money back due to him doing nothing for me. I filed for divorce after a 16 year marriage and lost everything. My kids, my home, cars, money, pension. Every attorney I have talked to is not willing to help me. What can I do? I was told i can file a civil suit but you have to have all of Steelers info that I don't have. Of someone can please help me or tell me what info I need would be great.

  4. It would appear that news breaking on Drudge from the Hoosier state (link below) ties back to this Hoosier story from the beginning of the recent police disrespect period .... MCBA president Cassandra Bentley McNair issued the statement on behalf of the association Dec. 1. The association said it was “saddened and disappointed” by the decision not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson for shooting Michael Brown. “The MCBA does not believe this was a just outcome to this process, and is disheartened that the system we as lawyers are intended to uphold failed the African-American community in such a way,” the association stated. “This situation is not just about the death of Michael Brown, but the thousands of other African-Americans who are disproportionately targeted and killed by police officers.” http://www.thestarpress.com/story/news/local/2016/07/18/hate-cops-sign-prompts-controversy/87242664/

  5. What form or who do I talk to about a d felony which I hear is classified as a 6 now? Who do I talk to. About to get my degree and I need this to go away it's been over 7 years if that helps.

ADVERTISEMENT