ILNews

Sexual misconduct doesn't fall under MedMal act

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals today affirmed a trial court determination that an employee's sexual conduct with a patient can't constitute a rendition of health care or professional services, so a negligent hiring complaint against a hospital based on that conduct doesn't fall under the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act.

In Fairbanks Hospital v. Dan Harrold, Eva Harrold, Natalie Harrold, and Indiana Department of Insurance, No. 49A02-0712-CV-1055, the Court of Appeals had to consider whether a complaint alleging negligent hiring, training, and supervision of a hospital employee falls within the act if the underlying tort allegedly committed by the employee was unwanted sexual advances.

Eighteen-year-old Natalie Harrold was admitted to Fairbanks' adolescent unit for inpatient substance abuse treatment. Adolescent guidance counselor Larry Shears participated in Harrold's care in September 1997. Shears later hugged, kissed, and patted Natalie on her buttocks on more than one occasion and urged her to call him. After she was discharged, Natalie reported Shears behavior; he was later fired.

The Harrolds' filed a complaint with the Indiana Department of Insurance and in Marion Superior Court, including an allegation of negligent supervision against Fairbanks. Fairbanks sought a ruling as a matter of law that the Harrolds' claims fall within the scope of the state's Medical Malpractice Act.

Citing Winona Memorial Hospital, Ltd. Partnership v. Kuester, 737 N.E.2d 824 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000), the appellate court wrote that both allegedly tortious acts - that the hospital was negligent and the employee's alleged negligence - that comprise a patient's claim of malpractice must sound in medical malpractice and not merely ordinary negligence, wrote Judge Ezra Friedlander.

In the instant case, Shears sexual misconduct with Natalie doesn't constitute a rendition of health care or professional services, so a claim based on the conduct doesn't fall under the act, wrote the judge. Because Shear's conduct doesn't fall under the act, the negligence claim against Fairbanks also can't fall within the scope of the act.

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. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT