Preferred Professional Ins. Co., and Hills Ins. Co. Inc. v. Crystal West, William West, and Ind. Dept. of Ins., Patient's Comp. Fund
23 N.E.3d 716
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Crystal West was catastrophically injured in a workplace accident when Michael, operating heavy machinery, struck the cherry-picker Crystal occupied, causing a 29-foot fall.
- The Wests filed a declaratory judgment action in Marion County seeking to determine whether Indiana's Medical Malpractice Act (MMA) applied to their negligence claims against Michael's healthcare providers.
- The St. Joseph Circuit Court had a pending action against healthcare providers (anonymous complaint and IDOI filing) asserting medical malpractice theories related to Michael's narcotic prescriptions and warnings.
- Marion County court initially ruled MMA did not apply, finding the Wests’ claims were common-law negligence, not medical malpractice, and thus not governed by MMA.
- On appeal, the court upheld the declaratory judgment approach and concluded the MMA does not apply to the Wests' claims, focusing on whether the claimant is a patient and whether the alleged conduct falls within the MMA's scope.
- The court analyzed the definition of 'patient' and determined the Wests, as third parties, did not fall within the MMA’s patient concept, and that some alleged acts were peripheral or not governed by medical judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| propriety of declaratory judgment | Wests sought early MMA determination to narrow issues. | Defendants argued no live insurance dispute and possible duplicative litigation. | Declaratory judgment permissible and appropriate to determine MMA applicability. |
| MMA applicability to Wests' claims | Wests contend claims are common-law negligence outside MMA. | Insurance Defendants argue claims arise from medical malpractice under MMA. | West’s claims fall outside the MMA; granted summary judgment for Wests and PCF. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gahl v. Estate of Gahl, 540 N.E.2d 1259 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989) (third-party claim not within MMA despite relation to patient care)
- Spangler v. Bechtel, 958 N.E.2d 458 (Ind. 2011) (expands 'or otherwise' to include emotional distress claims by patients or close connections)
- Doe by Roe v. Madison Center Hosp., 652 N.E.2d 101 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (test for whether conduct sounds in medical malpractice depends on provider’s professional care)
- Terry v. Cmty. Health Network, Inc., 17 N.E.3d 389 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (grey area of MMA: fringe cases where negligence may overlay medical care)
- Manley v. Sherer, 992 N.E.2d 670 (Ind. 2013) (pleading MMA vs. non-MMA claims and related estoppel considerations)