ILNews

Justices reverse ruling against hospital on spoliation claim

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Relying on workers’ compensation cases involving first- and third-party spoliation claims, the Indiana Supreme Court has declined to recognize similar claims regarding medical malpractice suits.

Lisa Gordon sued Howard Community Hospital, alleging it committed medical malpractice while caring for and delivering her son, Jacob. In her complaint, she included a count for spoliation, saying the hospital had lost certain medical records associated with her son’s care and the loss made it impossible for her to pursue a medical malpractice claim against one of Jacob’s doctors. The Gordons moved for partial summary judgment against Howard Regional with respect to their third-party spoliation claim, which the trial court granted.

On interlocutory appeal, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed, but the justices reversed Wednesday in Howard Regional Health System, et al. v. Jacob Gordon, b/n/f Lisa Gordon, No. 34S02-1009-CV-476. Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard wrote for the majority, addressing whether the spoliation claim falls under the Medical Malpractice Act, requiring a medical review panel to give its opinion before an action against the hospital can begin, and whether the Gordons even have a claim for spoliation.

The majority concluded that the claim falls under the general scope of the Medical Malpractice Act and Indiana’s statute on maintenance of health records does not create a private right to action.

“The Gordons’ underlying claim in Count II alleges medical malpractice because the ‘[m]aintenance of health records by providers’ is so closely entwined with health care and because records in general are so important to a medical review panel’s assessment of whether the appropriate standard of care was met,” wrote the chief justice. “Surely the skillful, accurate, and ongoing maintenance of test and treatment records bears strongly on subsequent treatment and diagnosis of patients. It is a part of what patients expect from health care providers. It is difficult to contemplate that such a service falls outside the Act.”

Relying on Gribben v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 824 N.E.2d 349, 350 (Ind. 2005), and Glotzbach v. Froman, 854 N.E.2d 337 (Ind. 2006), which dealt with first- and third-party spoliation claims in worker’s compensation cases, the majority found that the Gordons actually present a claim for first-party spoliation. In Gribben, the high court declined to recognize first-party spoliation claims and instead would address the claims through sanctions. It’s unknown at this point if the Gordons are entitled to any sanctions against the hospital.

Justice Brent Dickson concurred in result, writing, “While I conclude that (a) the Gordons' spoliation claim does not necessarily fall within the constraints of the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act; (b) the undisputed evidence establishes that the Hospital breached its statutory duty to maintain medical records; and (c) the Gordons' claim against the Hospital for loss of records that impairs their claims against the non-Hospital defendants is for third-party, not first-party spoliation; I am nevertheless persuaded that the elements of proximate cause and damages are not established in this third-party spoliation case. It is for this reason that I agree to reverse the grant of partial summary judgment.”

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. 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!!!

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT