ILNews

Majority: hospital owed duty to patient

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Court of Appeals judges were split in their decision March 12 regarding whether a hospital that performed a surgery on a woman with suspected domestic violence injuries should have prevented her from leaving with her ex-husband and alleged abuser, who later killed both of them on the way home from the hospital.

At issue in Ava McSwane and Danielle Hays v. Bloomington Hospital and Healthcare System and Jean M. Eelma, M.D., No. 53A04-0705-CV-243, is what duty the hospital owed to McSwane's daughter, Malia Vandeneede, once it suspected she came to the hospital with injuries as a result of domestic abuse.

Malia's ex-husband, Monty Vandeneede, brought Malia to Bloomington Hospital to receive treatment for injuries she claimed were from a fall from a horse, which would require surgery.

A nurse treating Malia suspected the injuries weren't from a fall and noticed Monty answered many questions for Malia. She discreetly asked Malia if she was a victim of domestic abuse, which Malia denied.

McSwane came to the hospital during Malia's surgery and told a nurse the ex-husband had beaten Malia with a fireplace poker; McSwane said she called police, who didn't respond to the call. Security was called to accompany Malia out of the hospital. She declined to remain in the hospital and chose to leave with her ex-husband, causing an argument between her and her mother. On the way home from the hospital, Monty killed Malia and then committed suicide.

McSwane brought a medical malpractice suit against the hospital and Dr. Eelma, Malia's surgeon. Eelma and the hospital were granted summary judgment at the trial court level.

The majority of judges affirmed summary judgment in favor of Eelma because McSwane first raised on appeal that Eelma had a statutory duty under Indiana Code 35-47-7-1 to report Malia's abuse, which required the issue to be waived for appellate review.

The judges were split on whether Bloomington Hospital owed a duty to Malia to protect her from a suspected abuser. Authoring Judge Melissa May and Judge Margret Robb believed the hospital should not have been granted summary judgment because of genuine issues of fact regarding the evidence in the case. There may be occasions when the hospital has a duty to not discharge a patient to the care of a suspected abuser, and that duty may arise from the hospital's general duty of care toward the patient or by virtue of statutory requirements to report abuse of endangered adults, wrote Judge May.

Hospitals owe a duty to protect their patients, even from people who are not employed by or affiliated with the hospital. May cited N.X. v. Cabrini Medical Center, 765 N.E.2d 844 (N.Y. 2002), where nurses observed behavior that had it been reported, may have prevented a sexual assault of a patient by a doctor. As in N.X., there is designated evidence that nurses observed conduct and information that could have alerted the hospital there was a risk of harm to Malia.

The majority also cited Breese v. State, 449 N.E.2d 1098 (Ind. Ct. App. 1983), in which a man committed suicide while admitted to a hospital despite pleas from his family to not leave the man unattended.

"We believe a hospital's duty of reasonable care requires consideration of evidence its patient is a victim of domestic abuse, just as it requires consideration of 'the physical and mental ailments of the patient which may affect his ability to look after his own safety.' Summary judgment for the Hospital in the case before us on the ground it owed Malia no duty was error," wrote Judge May.

In addition, Malia had been given several drugs during her admittance, during her surgery, and to ease her pain, so her state of mind to make the decision to leave with her ex-husband may have been clouded and rendered her an "endangered adult" under Indiana statute.

A hospital has a duty to report suspected abuse of an endangered adult and an independent duty to protect its patients from dangers that may result from circumstances in the hospital's control, she wrote, and that extends to discharging a patient to an alleged abuser. The hospital should not have been granted summary judgment.

In his dissent, Chief Judge John Baker wrote Malia repeatedly denied being abused and testimony from the record shows Malia was coherent, competent and in no way incapacitated when she decided to leave with her ex-husband. Various people in the hospital testified she and her mother had a heated argument about her leaving with the ex-husband, so there is no evidence on the record to show she was incapacitated and qualified as an endangered adult. If her own mother couldn't get her to stay or leave with someone else, and the hospital security guards and police couldn't do anything, what evidence on the record shows the hospital could have prevented Malia from leaving, he wrote. Under these circumstances, it's unfair and unjust to say the hospital faces potential liability for its actions, he wrote.

"To require the Hospital to guarantee the safety of its patients after they walk out of its doors is to raise a host of impossible questions - should the Hospital have forced Malia into a locked room? Placed her in restraints? Drugged her? How far does this duty extend - if Monty had killed Malia a week after her Hospital visit, would that still fall in the scope of the Hospital's duty of care?" wrote Chief Judge Baker.
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