Thomas Haggerty and Cathy Haggerty v. Anonymous Party 1, Anonymous Party 2, and Anonymous Party 3
998 N.E.2d 286
Ind. Ct. App.2013Background
- Thomas Haggerty, with chronic alcohol dependence, left an Indianapolis treatment facility (AP1) against medical advice in freezing weather and said he would walk 50 miles home to Bloomington.
- AP1 called security at a nearby facility (AP2); AP2 security found, restrained, and transported Thomas to AP2, where an emergency detention application was filed and he was held and treated for several days.
- The Haggertys filed a proposed medical-malpractice complaint against AP1 (API), AP2, and AP3 (AP2's corporate affiliate), alleging improper detention and deprivation of rights.
- The anonymous parties moved for summary judgment asserting statutory immunity under Ind. Code § 12-26-2-6 (immunity for participants in detention/commitment proceedings); the trial court granted judgment for API but denied it for AP2 and AP3.
- AP2 and AP3 obtained belated interlocutory certification; the court of appeals consolidated their appeal with the Haggertys’ appeal of API’s dismissal and reviewed jurisdiction, certification, amendment of designated evidence, and immunity.
- The court held the trial court had jurisdiction to preliminarily decide immunity (an affirmative defense), affirmed summary judgment for API, and reversed to grant summary judgment to AP2 and AP3, finding no genuine fact issue that statutory immunity applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court had jurisdiction to decide immunity before medical review panel | Haggertys: Immunity question reserved for medical review panel | Anonymous parties: Immunity is an affirmative defense the trial court may preliminarily determine | Court: Immunity is an affirmative defense under Trial Rule 8(C); trial court had jurisdiction |
| Whether AP1, AP2, AP3 are immune under Ind. Code § 12-26-2-6 | Haggertys: Detention and treatment deprived Thomas of personal/civil rights (force, confinement in bathroom, lack of suicide risk) so immunity doesn't apply | Defendants: Actions fall within detention/commitment statutes and were without malice, bad faith, or negligence; statutory immunity bars suit | Court: API immune (affirmed); AP2 and AP3 also immune (trial court denial reversed) |
| Whether trial court abused discretion granting belated interlocutory certification to AP2/AP3 | Haggertys: No good cause for 105-day delay; prejudiced | AP2/AP3: Consolidation of identical immunity issues with API appeal justifies belated certification | Court: No abuse of discretion; certification and appellate acceptance appropriate |
| Whether trial court erred in allowing amendment/supplementation of designated evidence for summary-judgment response | Haggertys: sought to add affidavits and records after deadline; defendants objected | Defendants: amendments untimely under T.R.56; trial court exceeded discretion | Court: Declined to decide issue on precedent; assumed evidence considered and resolved immunity on merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Griffith v. Jones, 602 N.E.2d 107 (Ind. 1992) (trial courts may preliminarily determine affirmative defenses in medical-malpractice context)
- Willis v. Westerfield, 839 N.E.2d 1179 (Ind. 2006) (definition and effect of affirmative defenses under Trial Rule 8(C))
- Miller v. Martig, 754 N.E.2d 41 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (some medical-review-panel determinations require expert opinion and are reserved)
- Rocca v. S. Hills Counseling Ctr., Inc., 671 N.E.2d 913 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (medical-review-panel jurisdiction limitations)
- Hodge v. Johnson, 852 N.E.2d 650 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (procedural posture and standard for preliminary determination under malpractice act)
- Cole v. Gohmann, 727 N.E.2d 1111 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (summary-judgment burdens in context of preliminary determination)
- Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Bill Gaddis Chrysler Dodge, Inc., 973 N.E.2d 1179 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (interpretation of T.R.56(E) regarding supplementation of designated evidence)