ILNews

Judges divided on calculation of damages after negligence

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals was split in deciding whether an estate received the correct amount of damages from the Indiana Patients’ Compensation Fund. One judge believed the trial court used an incorrect approach for calculating damages because the deceased man had at least a 50 percent chance of survival before the medical negligence.

At issue in Carol Cutter, et al. v. Geneva Herbst, personal representative of the Estate of Jeffry A. Herbst, deceased, No. 49A04-1006-PL-343, is whether the trial court was correct in concluding that Jeffry Herbst had a 50 percent pre-negligence survival chance verses a 10 percent post-negligence survival chance resulting in $750,000 in damages. Both the Indiana Patients’ Compensation Fund and Herbst’s estate challenged the numbers, with the estate claiming the ultimate post-negligence chance of survival was 0 percent.

After Herbst’s death from fulminant myocarditis in the hospital, his estate brought a wrongful death action against Herbst’s primary care doctor, who believed he had pneumonia; the doctor’s employer, and the hospital. The estate sought the statutory maximum in damages from the fund. The case made its way through Indiana courts previously and is now before the Indiana Court of Appeals a second time. The trial court found that the estate was entitled to only recover $250,000 but then granted the estate’s motion to correct error and awarded the estate $750,000 by calculating the percent of chance lost multiplied by the total amount of damages that are ordinarily allowed in a wrongful death action.

The majority found nothing wrong with using this calculation, which was explained by the Indiana Supreme Court in Cahoon v. Cummings, 734 N.E.2d 535, 541 (Ind. 2000). Chief Judge Margret Robb dissented on this point, disagreeing with the trial court’s use of the Mayhue/Restatement approach to calculate the damages since Herbst’s pre-negligence chance of survival was 50 percent.

“Where the patient's chance of survival is greater than 50% absent the negligence, however, traditional tort principles adequately address the injury and applying the Restatement approach is unnecessary,” she wrote, noting she would remand for a recalculation of damages.

The Court of Appeals also disagreed with the estate that Herbst’s post-negligence chance of survival should be 0 percent because his death was the end result of the medical malpractice.

“Accepting the Estate‘s argument would in essence amount to making the Fund liable for the full value of the wrongful death claim. This holding would be inconsistent with the statutory requirement that the defendant should only be liable for the increase in risk already leading to a likely result,” wrote Judge Patricia Riley.

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. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT