Spangler v. Bechtel
2011 Ind. LEXIS 1089
| Ind. | 2011Background
- Plaintiffs Steven Spangler and Heidi Brown suffered the stillbirth of their full-term baby in utero during Brown's labor at St. Vincent Randolph Hospital on February 24, 2003.
- Plaintiffs asserted three counts: negligent obstetrical care causing death, hospital and center supervision/privileges claims, and negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED).
- Bechtel (nurse-midwife) and the Center sought summary judgment arguing CWDA barred NIED and MMA did not apply to unborn fetuses.
- The trial court granted partial summary judgment on CWDA grounds and Bechtel/Center; the Hospital’s MMA-based arguments were not resolved on all theories.
- Court of Appeals reversed in part; Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer to address whether stillbirth-based NIED claims are precluded by CWDA or MMA.
- Key issue: whether parents may pursue emotional distress damages for stillbirth under bystander or modified impact rules, and whether unborn child is a 'patient' under MMA
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| CWDA preclusion of NIED for stillbirth | Spangler/Brown not barred under CWDA for emotional distress | Bechtel/Center contend CWDA governs and bars such NIED claims | CWDA does not bar bystander/modified impact NIED claims for stillbirth |
| MMA applicability to stillbirth NIED | MMA permits emotional distress damages in malpractice actions for stillbirth | Unborn child not a patient under MMA, so no MMA-based NIED claim | Unborn child can be part of MMA action; stillbirth NIED damages are valid under MMA as non-derivative emotional damages |
| Direct impact vs bystander rules | Plaintiffs fit within bystander or modified impact theories for emotional distress | Court should require negligent injury to another or direct physical impact | Plaintiffs may pursue NIED under bystander rule; need not show negligent injury to another for all circumstances |
| Derivative vs non-derivative nature of the NIED claim under MMA | NIED claims are direct injuries to parents, not purely derivative of fetus injury | NIED claims must derive from a patient injury under MMA | NIED claims are not purely derivative; parents’ emotional distress arising from the stillbirth are recoverable under MMA |
Key Cases Cited
- Bolin v. Wingert, 764 N.E.2d 201 (Ind. 2002) (unborn fetus not a CWDA 'child'; stillbirth emotional damages not wrongful death)
- Ryan v. Brown, 827 N.E.2d 112 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (mother of stillborn allowed NIED; CWDA does not bar emotional damages)
- Breece v. Lugo, 800 N.E.2d 224 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (allows NIED for stillbirth; Bolin not controlling for all emotional damages)
- Winkle v. Ind. Patient's Comp. Fund, 863 N.E.2d 1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (MMA caps; derivative vs non-derivative claims discussed in context of unborn child)
- Patrick v. Ind. Patient's Comp. Fund, 929 N.E.2d 190 (Ind. 2010) (MMA is procedural; permits emotional distress where available; disclaims blanket preclusion)
- Conder v. Wood, 716 N.E.2d 432 (Ind. 1999) (modified impact rule: direct physical impact not required to recover emotional distress)
- Shuamber v. Henderson, 579 N.E.2d 452 (Ind. 1991) (rejected strict physical impact; adopted modified impact rule)
- Groves v. Taylor, 729 N.E.2d 569 (Ind. 2000) (bystander rule for emotional distress by witnessing death/injury to a loved one)
- Estate of Mintz v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Co., 905 N.E.2d 994 (Ind. 2009) (outline elements of negligence, including duty, breach, causation)