124 N.E.3d 76
Ind. Ct. App.2019Background
- In June 2015 G.F. was an in-patient at St. Catherine when Dr. Patel, within the patient room and with a visitor present, stated that G.F.’s CD4 count was low and he needed to see an infectious disease doctor; the visitor inferred HIV and ceased contact with G.F.
- G.F. filed a proposed medical-malpractice complaint with the Indiana Department of Insurance and later filed an anonymous court complaint; a medical review panel issued a split decision, finding a factual issue regarding Dr. Patel.
- G.F. sued for declaratory judgment in Marion County, arguing his claim (negligent disclosure of protected health information) falls outside the Medical Malpractice Act (MMA); he moved for summary judgment.
- St. Catherine and Dr. Patel failed to timely respond under T.R. 56(C); they sought leave to file a late response based on a Marion County local rule; the trial court allowed the late filing and denied G.F.’s summary judgment.
- The Court of Appeals reversed: it held the trial court abused its discretion permitting the late response (T.R. 56 bright-line rule controls) and ruled that negligent dissemination of protected health information is not governed by the MMA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in allowing a belated response to G.F.’s summary judgment motion under T.R. 56 | Eggeson: Defendants missed the 30-day deadline; their late response and designated evidence should be excluded | St. Catherine/Patel: Marion Co. Local Rule 203(A) made G.F.’s motion defective until cured, so defendants’ response was timely | Court: T.R. 56’s 30-day bright-line governs; local rule cannot alter it; trial court abused discretion and late filings are excluded |
| Whether the MMA applies to negligent disclosure of protected health information | G.F.: Disclosure was not curative/salutary treatment and sounds in ordinary negligence/privacy, not MMA | St. Catherine/Patel: Dr. Patel’s comment arose from patient care (lab result/recommendation), so MMA governs | Court: Disclosure to a third party is not treatment or professional judgment for the patient; negligent dissemination of PHI is not within the MMA |
Key Cases Cited
- HomEq Servicing Corp. v. Baker, 883 N.E.2d 95 (Ind. 2008) (establishes T.R. 56 30-day bright-line rule for responses)
- Mitchell v. 10th & The Bypass, LLC, 3 N.E.3d 967 (Ind. 2014) (endorses and describes importance of the bright-line rule)
- BHC Meadows Hosp., Inc. v. H.D., 884 N.E.2d 849 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (held negligent dissemination of patient information to the public falls outside the MMA)
- Howard Reg’l Health Sys. v. Gordon, 952 N.E.2d 182 (Ind. 2011) (explains MMA covers conduct related to provision and maintenance of patient care)
- Collins v. Thakkar, 552 N.E.2d 507 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990) (MMA applies when conduct is curative or salutary and involves professional judgment)
- Manley v. Sherer, 992 N.E.2d 670 (Ind. 2013) (discusses consequences of filing a proposed complaint with IDOI; court interpreted narrowly)
- Doe by Roe v. Madison Ctr. Hosp., 652 N.E.2d 101 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (substance of claim, not label, determines MMA applicability)