B.R. ex rel. Todd v. State
1 N.E.3d 708
Ind. Ct. App.2013Background
- B.R., a 3‑year‑old with developmental delays and disruptive behavior, was placed in therapeutic foster care under the supervision of an Adult and Child Mental Health Center (the Health Center) contracted by DCS.
- While in weekend respite placement with the Hugheses (arranged by the Health Center case manager), B.R. wandered to an adjacent property, entered a swimming pool, and suffered catastrophic brain injury from near‑drowning.
- B.R., by his guardian, sued multiple defendants and amended to assert claims against the Health Center for negligent placement, supervision, inspection, and failure to warn foster parents about B.R.’s tendency to run.
- The Health Center moved to dismiss under Trial Rule 12(B)(1), arguing the claim sounded in medical malpractice and therefore the Medical Malpractice Act required presentation to a medical review panel before suit (divesting trial court jurisdiction).
- The trial court granted the 12(B)(1) dismissal; the Court of Appeals reversed, holding the alleged misconduct sounded in ordinary negligence, not "health care" under the Medical Malpractice Act, so the dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was erroneous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Health Center's placement/supervision of B.R. constituted "health care" under the Medical Malpractice Act, requiring medical review panel exhaustion | Placement and information to respite foster parents is foster‑care management, not health care; no health care professional was required to make the decision | Health Center is a health care provider and actions fall under the Act; licensed staff could serve on a medical review panel so the panel process applies | Held: The placement/supervision decisions were ordinary negligence, not "health care"; the Medical Malpractice Act did not apply, so dismissal for lack of jurisdiction was error |
Key Cases Cited
- Murphy v. Mortell, 684 N.E.2d 1185 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (Act pertains to curative/salutary conduct by providers in professional capacity)
- Collins v. Thakkar, 552 N.E.2d 507 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990) (medical review panels confined to matters requiring professional medical judgment)
- OB‑GYN Associates of N. Ind. P.C. v. Ransbottom, 885 N.E.2d 734 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (treatment not "health care" where no healthcare credentials or professional involvement required)
- Peters v. Cummins Mental Health, Inc., 790 N.E.2d 572 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (claims sounding in general negligence against medical providers lie outside the Act)
- H.D. v. BHC Meadows Hosp., Inc., 884 N.E.2d 849 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (example holding nonmedical conduct not requiring review panel)
- GKN Co. v. Magness, 744 N.E.2d 397 (Ind. 2001) (standards for appellate review of Trial Rule 12(B)(1) when facts in dispute)