ILNews

Justices: Claim not allowed under MedMal act

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Because claims for emotional distress aren’t allowed under the Adult Wrongful Death Statute, a father can’t bring this type of derivative claim under the Medical Malpractice Act, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled today.

Gary Patrick brought a claim, individually and as representative of his son’s estate, under the Adult Wrongful Death Statute for his son Christopher’s death caused by negligence of health-care providers after Christopher was injured in a car accident. The hospital discharged him despite complaints of pain and Christopher later died of a ruptured colon at the home he shared with his father.

Patrick also brought a derivative claim under the Medical Malpractice Act for his own emotional distress.

After settling with the health-care providers, Patrick filed his petition for payment of excess damages with the Indiana Patient’s Compensation Fund.

The trial court found the AWDS applied to Patrick’s claim as personal representative of Christopher’s estate and awarded him more than $300,000 in damages for loss of love and companionship and other expenses. The trial court also awarded him $600,000 for his emotional distress claim. The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed.

In Indiana Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Gary Patrick, No. 49A02-0909-CV-402, Patrick argued he’s entitled to bring a claim for his own emotional distress under the MMA. The MMA doesn’t define “bodily injury” and the Supreme Court declined to define it in the same manner it has in caselaw dealing with insurance polices. The high court has also held that the requirement for bodily injury or death in the MMA applies to the actual victim of the malpractice and not derivative claimants.

And, based on Chamberlain v. Walpole, 822 N.E.2d 959 (Ind. 2005), Patrick can’t seek damages for emotional distress. The MMA serves as a procedural mechanism for claims of medical malpractice and a derivative claimant can only pursue claims allowed at common law or under applicable statutes, wrote Justice Frank Sullivan. The MMA doesn’t create new causes of action that don’t otherwise exist, so whether Patrick has a claim for emotional distress depends on the AWDS.

“It was Son who was the victim of the medical malpractice; therefore, any claim in Father’s own right is a derivative claim. As discussed above, any derivative claim that Father has depends upon the AWDS,” wrote the justice. “Because claims for emotional distress are not allowed under the AWDS, Father may not bring this type of derivative claim under the MMA.”

The justices also clarified that were the claim underlying the MMA action one for which damages for emotional distress were available, the MMA doesn’t preclude derivative claims of emotional distress by those whom the law refers to as “bystanders.”
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT