ILNews

Worker's comp claim bars med mal complaint

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the denial of a hospital's motion to dismiss a medical malpractice complaint because the claimant, who was employed by the hospital and on duty at the time of the injury, could only file a complaint against the employer under the Worker's Compensation Act.

In ProCare Rehab Services of Community Hospital v. Janice S. Vitatoe,  No. 49A02-0707-CV-583, Janice Vitatoe, who was employed as a registered nurse by Community, slipped and fell during her shift and injured her right hamstring. She began treatment with an orthopedic surgeon at Central Indiana Orthopedics and underwent outpatient physical therapy at ProCare Rehab Services, which is a department of Community.

Vitatoe filed a worker's compensation claim against Community. After she was no longer employed by the hospital, she filed a proposed medical malpractice complaint with the Indiana Department of Insurance, alleging negligence of her orthopedic surgeon, Central Indiana Orthopedics, and ProCare.

Vitatoe and Community settled the worker's compensation claim and Community moved to dismiss the medical malpractice complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The trial court denied Community's motion.

The Worker's Compensation Act contains an exclusivity provision that the rights and remedies granted to an employee through the act "shall exclude all other rights and remedies of such employee ... at common law or otherwise ..." The Indiana Supreme Court has ruled that the Worker's Compensation Act's exclusivity provision bars a court from hearing any common law action brought by the employee based on the same injuries.

Community argues that Vitatoe's injuries arose out of and in the course of her employment so her medical malpractice claim against Community is barred under the Worker's Compensation Act. Vitatoe counters that the injuries that form the basis for her complaint didn't arise from and in the course of her employment but during treatment for the original injury.

Citing previous caselaw, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled that if an employee's injury happened during the course of her employment is aggravated by treatment for that injury, regardless of where, when, by whom, and for how long the treatment was provided, the injury caused by the treatment will be deemed as a matter of law to have come out of and in the course of her employment for purposes of the Worker's Compensation Act. As a result, the employee's exclusive remedy against the employer for the injury caused by the treatment is under the act, wrote Judge Terry Crone.

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. Contact Lea Shelemey attorney in porter county Indiana. She just helped us win our case...she is awesome...

  2. We won!!!! It was a long expensive battle but we did it. I just wanted people to know it is possible. And if someone can point me I. The right direction to help change the way the courts look as grandparents as only grandparents. The courts assume the parent does what is in the best interest of the child...and the court is wrong. A lot of the time it is spite and vindictiveness that separates grandparents and grandchildren. It should not have been this long and hard and expensive...Something needs to change...

  3. Typo on # of Indiana counties

  4. The Supreme Court is very proud that they are Giving a billion dollar public company from Texas who owns Odyssey a statewide monopoly which consultants have said is not unnecessary but worse they have already cost Hoosiers well over $100 MILLION, costing tens of millions every year and Odyssey is still not connected statewide which is in violation of state law. The Supreme Court is using taxpayer money and Odyssey to compete against a Hoosier company who has the only system in Indiana that is connected statewide and still has 40 of the 82 counties despite the massive spending and unnecessary attacks

  5. Here's a recent resource regarding steps that should be taken for removal from the IN sex offender registry. I haven't found anything as comprehensive as of yet. Hopefully this is helpful - http://www.chjrlaw.com/removal-indiana-sex-offender-registry/

ADVERTISEMENT