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

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT