128 N.E.3d 549
Ind. Ct. App.2019Background
- Roy Martinez, a patient at Oaklawn Psychiatric Center’s supervised group living Metcalf House, was involved in a late-night altercation with resident assistant Kennedy Kafatia; Kafatia kicked Martinez, who later stopped breathing and died.
- Metcalf House is licensed as supervised group living and Oaklawn is undisputedly a health-care provider; resident assistants receive annual training in de-escalation and protocols to call 911 and remove themselves from violent situations.
- The Estate sued Oaklawn (vicarious liability for Kafatia) alleging negligent supervision, failure to provide first aid, inadequate staffing/training, and failure to provide a safe environment.
- Oaklawn moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Trial Rule 12(B)(1), arguing the claim is governed by the Medical Malpractice Act (MMA) and thus required submission to a medical review panel before suit.
- The trial court granted dismissal, finding the alleged conduct arose from the patient–provider relationship and was therefore within the MMA; the Court of Appeals reviewed the undisputed paper record de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Estate’s claims fall under the Medical Malpractice Act (precluding court suit absent medical review panel) or are ordinary negligence/premises liability | Martinez’s injuries and Oaklawn’s failures were ordinary negligence/premises-liability (enforcing curfew, failing to render aid) not requiring medical expertise or a medical-review panel | The conduct (curfew enforcement, supervision, training, confinement) arose from the patient–provider relationship and healthcare functions; thus MMA applies and panel review is prerequisite | MMA applies: the conduct arose naturally/predictably from the health-care-provider–patient relationship and was within scope of employment; dismissal for lack of jurisdiction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- B.R. ex rel. Todd v. State, 1 N.E.3d 708 (Ind. Ct. App.) (distinguishing conduct that can be decided by lay jurors from malpractice requiring medical-panel review)
- Terry v. Community Health Network, Inc., 17 N.E.3d 389 (Ind. Ct. App.) (MMA vests initial jurisdiction in medical review panels; distinguishes conduct related to provider’s professional capacity)
- Howard Regional Health Sys. v. Gordon, 952 N.E.2d 182 (Ind.) (MMA covers conduct related to promotion of patient health or professional judgment)
- Cox v. Evansville Police Dep’t, 107 N.E.3d 453 (Ind.) (scope of employment includes acts that naturally or predictably arise from employment; governs employer liability for unauthorized/criminal acts)
- Putnam County Hosp. v. Sells, 619 N.E.2d 968 (Ind. Ct. App.) (hospital recovery-room monitoring alleged as malpractice rather than premises/equipment defect)
- OB-GYN Assocs. of N. Ind. v. Ransbottom, 885 N.E.2d 734 (Ind. Ct. App.) (cosmetic procedures performed outside core health-care functions may fall outside MMA)
- Madison Ctr., Inc. v. R.R.K., 853 N.E.2d 1286 (Ind. Ct. App.) (injuries caused by third-party patient can be premises-liability rather than malpractice when harm arises from presence on premises rather than provider’s treatment)
- Ogle v. St. John’s Hickey Mem. Hosp., 473 N.E.2d 1055 (Ind. Ct. App.) (failure to provide protection during psychiatric confinement was held to involve professional/medical judgment under MMA)
- Webb v. Jarvis, 575 N.E.2d 992 (Ind.) (third-party assault context used to analyze malpractice versus ordinary negligence)