Ball Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. Fair
2015 Ind. App. LEXIS 124
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Suwanna Dickey, admitted to Ball Memorial Hospital in April 2008 for acute psychosis, received antipsychotics (Geodon then risperidone) from treating clinicians; she vomited repeatedly and died on April 12, 2008; autopsy listed cardiac arrhythmia related to dehydration as primary cause.
- L. Gail Fair, personal representative, filed a proposed medical-malpractice complaint with the Indiana Medical Review Panel naming Ball Memorial, Dr. Izzet Yazgan, Meridian Services, and others; the Panel unanimously found no breach of the standard of care.
- Fair later filed suit in Delaware Circuit Court; discovery produced testimony and expert opinions suggesting Ball Memorial’s pharmacist may have failed to clarify dosing and thus breached the standard of care.
- Ball Memorial moved for summary judgment arguing Fair never presented pharmacist negligence to the Panel and thus cannot pursue that claim; the trial court denied summary judgment on that issue and found Meridian nurses were not Ball Memorial employees.
- On appeal Ball Memorial challenged the denial as to pharmacist claims and sought a ruling that any Ball Memorial liability would be only vicarious for Meridian/Dr. Yazgan; the court considered whether the Panel submission had to identify pharmacist negligence and whether defendants may raise pharmacist negligence as a defense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Fair may pursue a negligence claim against Ball Memorial’s pharmacist though pharmacist negligence was not specifically alleged to the Medical Review Panel | Fair: her proposed complaint accused Ball Memorial staff of improper medication administration and thus put Ball Memorial on notice that staff (including pharmacist) negligence was at issue; notice pleading suffices | Ball Memorial: plaintiff failed to present pharmacist-specific allegations to the Panel, so claim is barred | Held: Fair may pursue the claim; the proposed complaint sufficiently alleged staff medication administration failures that put Ball Memorial on notice (relying on Miller/notice pleading principles) |
| Whether defendants (Dr. Yazgan and Meridian) may assert pharmacist negligence as a defense even if not raised to the Panel | Fair: not disputed; no burden on defendants to present defenses to Panel | Defendants: they may raise pharmacist negligence as a defense despite it not being before the Panel | Held: Defendants may raise pharmacist negligence as a defense; the Act imposes the Panel-presentation burden on plaintiffs only |
| Whether Ball Memorial is limited to vicarious liability for Meridian/Dr. Yazgan (and thus to the statutory $250,000 cap) at this stage | Ball Memorial: seeks declaration its liability (if any) is limited to vicarious liability and statutory cap | Fair: issue not ripe because Ball Memorial pharmacist negligence claim remains live | Held: Not ripe; court refused to limit Ball Memorial’s potential liability to vicarious liability at this time |
| Whether precedent (K.D. v. Chambers) bars Fair’s claim | Fair: K.D. conflicts with Miller and is distinguishable; notice pleading controls | Ball Memorial: relies on K.D. to argue Panel omission is fatal | Held: Court avoided deciding K.D.’s validity but found Miller principles sufficient to allow Fair’s claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Mem'l Hosp. of S. Bend, Inc., 679 N.E.2d 1329 (Ind. 1997) (notice-pleading principles allow a proposed complaint to preserve claims against different defendants without full particulars)
- K.D. v. Chambers, 951 N.E.2d 855 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (discussed by parties regarding scope of Panel presentation; court declined to rely on it)
- Galindo v. Christensen, 569 N.E.2d 702 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991) (explains the burden of submission to the medical review panel falls on the plaintiff)
- Merchants Nat'l Bank v. Simrell's Sports Bar & Grill, Inc., 741 N.E.2d 383 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (standard of review for summary judgment)