Shacare Terry v. Community Health Network, Inc.
17 N.E.3d 389
Ind. Ct. App.2014Background
- On August 5, 2011 Terry, allegedly drugged at a club, was brought to Community Hospital unconscious; emergency staff performed a full body exam and toxicology screen and noted possible vaginal trauma but did not complete a rape kit or preserve evidence.
- Hospital staff did not report the possible rape to law enforcement; no evidence was preserved, hindering a police investigation.
- While treated, Terry alleges hospital staff made derogatory comments (called her an “addict,” wrote “Happy Birthday” by the trauma note) causing emotional distress.
- Terry sued Community for (1) breach of duty (including failure to report, preserve evidence, and notify her) and (2) intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED).
- Community moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act (the Act) required submission to a medical review panel before suit; the trial court granted the motion and dismissed both claims.
- On appeal, the court considered whether each claim “sounds in medical malpractice” (bringing it under the Act) or is independent tortious conduct immune from the Act’s pre-suit requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Terry’s breach of duty claim is governed by the Medical Malpractice Act | Terry: duties to report a possible rape, preserve evidence, and notify her are not medical-malpractice duties and thus not subject to the Act | Community: duties arose from medical evaluation/treatment decisions; claim is medical malpractice and must go to a review panel first | Held: claim is medical malpractice in substance; dismissal for lack of jurisdiction affirmed |
| Whether Terry’s IIED claim is governed by the Medical Malpractice Act | Terry: derogatory statements were intentional, non-medical conduct not tied to medical diagnosis/treatment, so the Act does not apply | Community: statements arose in the course of patient care and thus fall within the Act | Held: IIED claim is not subsumed by the Act; trial court erred in dismissing it and claim is remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Howard Reg'l Health Sys. v. Gordon, 952 N.E.2d 182 (Ind. 2011) (defines scope of Act to curative or salutary conduct and professional judgment)
- Doe by Roe v. Madison Ctr. Hosp., 652 N.E.2d 101 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (substance-over-form test to decide applicability of the Act)
- B.R. ex rel. Todd v. State, 1 N.E.3d 708 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (distinguishes ordinary negligence from medical malpractice based on need for medical standard of care)
- Popovich v. Danielson, 896 N.E.2d 1196 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (applied Act to physician notes made for medical diagnosis)
- Madison Ctr., Inc. v. R.R.K., 853 N.E.2d 1286 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (presence of patient-provider relationship not dispositive; focus is whether conduct was within professional capacity)
- Anonymous Hosp., Inc. v. Doe, 996 N.E.2d 329 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (decisions by medical staff during treatment can fall within the Act)
- OB-GYN Assoc. of N. Indiana, P.C. v. Ransbottom, 885 N.E.2d 734 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (Act inapplicable where service could be provided by non-medical personnel; supports excluding some nonclinical acts)