Howard Regional Health System v. Gordon
2011 Ind. LEXIS 689
Ind.2011Background
- Lisa Gordon gave birth to Jacob at Howard Community Hospital; Gordons allege substandard care caused Jacob's disorders.
- Gordons requested and later discovered missing medical records from events around Jan 6–7, 1999, including nursing notes, labor flow, fetal monitor strips, and perioperative notes.
- In 2005 Gordons filed a Medical Malpractice Act complaint; in 2006 they added Gard, Marler, and Community Family Health Center and asserted a third-party spoliation claim against the Hospital.
- Trial court held Hospital had a duty to maintain records and breached Indiana Code 16-39-7-1, creating a gap affecting the medical panel review; court granted partial summary judgment on spoliation.
- Court of Appeals affirmed; Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer to address whether spoliation is within the Malpractice Act and whether a private action exists for record destruction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does spoliation fall within the Medical Malpractice Act? | Gordons: spoliation related to care; Act applies. | Howard Regional: spoliation is outside the Act; separate action not proper. | Spoliation claim not categorically within the Act; subject to separate analysis. |
| Does the maintenance statute create a private right of action? | Statute creates private liability for destroying records. | No private remedy; immunity provisions limit civil liability. | No private right of action under 16-39-7-1; no civil liability absent other basis. |
| Is the Gordons' spoliation claim against the Hospital first-party or third-party? | Claim implicates Hospital's destruction of records affecting underlying claims. | Treat as first-party spoliation; separate from third-party claims against others. | Claim is not a pure first-party action against Hospital for spoliation that would support independent relief; issues stay with underlying claims. |
| If partial summary judgment is appropriate, may sanctions address spoliation? | Sanctions or adverse inferences possible against Hospital. | Sanctions depend on factual record; summary ruling appropriate only if spoliation is a standalone claim. | Ambiguity requires further factual development; reversal of partial summary judgment on spoliation; sanctions to be considered evidentiary. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gribben v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 824 N.E.2d 349 (Ind. 2005) (no independent first-party spoliation tort)
- Glotzbach v. Froman, 854 N.E.2d 337 (Ind. 2006) (third-party spoliation concerns probative damages; difficulty proving causation)
- Kho v. Pennington, 875 N.E.2d 208 (Ind. 2007) (private right of action analysis; legislative intent governs)
- Estate of Cullop v. State, 821 N.E.2d 403 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (private rights of action vs public enforcement; intent governs)