Stafford v. Szymanowski
13 N.E.3d 890
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Stafford received prenatal care from GYN and physicians (including Drs. Szymanowski and Smith) in 2007; her fetus Drayden was stillborn on November 6, 2007.
- Stafford presented alleged negligent acts between Oct 6–Nov 6, 2007; she filed a proposed medical malpractice complaint with the Indiana Department of Insurance in June 2009 and amended it to add the stillborn child.
- The Medical Review Panel (Panel) issued a unanimous opinion on May 30, 2012, that the defendants met the standard of care.
- Appellants designated expert Gary Brickner, M.D., who opined certain tests (e.g., non‑stress test within the biophysical profile, follow up on glucose screen) were omitted or misinterpreted and that those omissions contributed to the stillbirth.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for Dr. Szymanowski and corporate defendant GYN, and held the Child Wrongful Death Statute (CWDS) amendment did not apply to a 2007 stillbirth. Appellants appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Brickner’s testimony created a genuine issue of material fact as to Dr. Szymanowski’s liability | Brickner’s affidavit/deposition shows the Nov 1 biophysical profile was insufficient or misinterpreted and Szymanowski was involved that day | Brickner could not identify who performed/interpreted the test; Panel already found Szymanowski met the standard of care | Summary judgment for Szymanowski affirmed — Brickner did not rebut the Panel as to Szymanowski |
| Whether GYN can be held vicariously liable for alleged malpractice by Dr. Smith (an individual whose conduct was not reviewed by the Panel) | GYN should be vicariously liable under respondeat superior for Dr. Smith’s alleged failures (e.g., failure to follow up on glucose screen) | The Medical Malpractice Act requires Panel review of the individual physician’s conduct before civil suit; allowing vicarious liability without Panel review would circumvent statutory gatekeeping | Summary judgment for GYN affirmed — cannot impute liability for a physician whose conduct was not reviewed by the Panel |
| Whether CWDS (as amended in 2009 to include viable fetuses) permits recovery for Drayden’s 2007 death | The CWDS amendment became effective before the Panel issued its opinion in 2012; plaintiff argues the claim could be pursued after Panel review under the amended statute | The CWDS amendment is not retroactive; wrongful‑death claims accrue at date of death; Drayden died in 2007 (before the 2009 amendment) | No recovery under CWDS for 2007 stillbirth; summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Boston v. GYN, Ltd., 785 N.E.2d 1187 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (panel opinion binds requirement that plaintiff present expert to create genuine issue)
- McGee v. Bonaventura, 605 N.E.2d 792 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993) (medical negligence issues require expert proof of applicable standard of care)
- Chamberlain v. Walpole, 822 N.E.2d 959 (Ind. 2005) (Medical Malpractice Act is procedural; does not create substantive cause of action)
- Ellenwine v. Fairley, 846 N.E.2d 657 (Ind. 2006) (wrongful death claim accrues at date of death; two-year statute of limitations applies)
- Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Patrick, 929 N.E.2d 190 (Ind. 2010) (Medical Malpractice Act is procedural mechanism requiring Panel review)
- Bolin v. Wingert, 764 N.E.2d 201 (Ind. 2002) (historical rule disallowing CWDS recovery for fetuses prior to 2009 amendment)