Indiana Supreme Court sides with the ISMA
In a recent court case with the summary listed here from the ISMA’s website Indiana State Medical Association, the Indiana Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of the Patient’s Compensation Fund (PCF) in the case of Atterholt v. Herbst. The Court’s decision confirmed the right of the PCF to reduce its damages when a health care provider only slightly contributed to the patient’s injury. The ISMA participated in the case.
“This legal case helped preserve the PCF’s right to challenge damages awards, especially in difficult cases,” said Julie Reed, ISMA legal counsel. “The ISMA is very pleased to have contributed to such an important case on behalf of Indiana physicians.”
Details of the case
Jeffrey Herbst, age 34, presented to his doctor March 6, 2002, with a fever, congestion, nausea, loss of appetite and decreased urine output. His physician diagnosed him with bilateral pneumonia and sent him to the hospital. Herbst died within 11 hours due to fulminant myocarditis. His estate then sued for wrongful death.
The medical review panel concluded that the doctor had failed to meet the standard of care, but that the failure was not a factor in Herbst’s death. The doctor and hospital settled the case for $250,000. Plaintiffs then sued the Patient’s Compensation Fund for excess damages of $1 million.
At trial in Marion County, the judge would not allow the PCF to introduce expert testimony indicating that even with proper care, Herbst had a less than a 10 percent chance of surviving hospitalization, and if he survived, he would have been unable to return to work.
The court’s decision was based on a controversial provision in the Medical Malpractice Act, which states that once a case is settled, liability has been established and cannot be argued by the PCF.
Plaintiffs argued – and the trial court agreed – that the expert testimony was an impermissible attempt to argue liability. The court concluded that damages exceeded $2.5 million and awarded the estate the statutory maximum of $1 million from the PCF.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court. However, the PCF appealed to the Indiana Supreme Court, and the ISMA filed an amicus curiae brief as an interested third party. The Supreme Court accepted the case.
Subsequently, the Supreme Court agreed with the PCF that its expert testimony was improperly excluded, noting the patient’s increased risk of death could be considered both liability and damages arguments.
The ISMA argued it was both legally improper and unfair to hold the physician liable for damages his actions did not cause. Again, the Supreme Court agreed.
The court ruled that assuming “…any malpractice by either provider increased his chance of harm by no more than 10 percent,… the Fund is liable for only 10 percent of the value of his survival. Moreover, if with proper care Herbst still had no chance of working in the future, no lost wages are recoverable from the Fund.”
Reed noted, “Here, the plaintiff was seeking 100 percent damages from a doctor who was, perhaps, only 10 percent responsible for the outcome.”
The court speaks
The court noted that Indiana’s Medical Malpractice Act was “plainly not intended to expand recovery for medical malpractice,” as plaintiffs had attempted to do. The Court of Appeals had noted the “potential for unjust outcomes” in these types of cases but suggested that providers “should not be overly eager to settle such claims.”
The Supreme Court squarely disagreed and stated these are the exact types of cases providers are incentivized to settle. Therefore, relying on doctors to refuse to settle claims does not constitute an “adequate safeguard against invasion of the Fund.”
The case has been remanded to the trial court for a damages determination.
“The Supreme Court’s opinion sends a strong message that damages must always be proportionate to a physician’s liability,” said Reed. “This case fairly restored physicians – as well as the PCF – to the same playing field as other tortfeasors and helped protect the integrity of the Fund.”
This is a benefit to all physicians practicing in Indiana and keeps rewards proportionate to fault.
“This legal case helped preserve the PCF’s right to challenge damages awards, especially in difficult cases,” said Julie Reed, ISMA legal counsel. “The ISMA is very pleased to have contributed to such an important case on behalf of Indiana physicians.”
Details of the case
Jeffrey Herbst, age 34, presented to his doctor March 6, 2002, with a fever, congestion, nausea, loss of appetite and decreased urine output. His physician diagnosed him with bilateral pneumonia and sent him to the hospital. Herbst died within 11 hours due to fulminant myocarditis. His estate then sued for wrongful death.
The medical review panel concluded that the doctor had failed to meet the standard of care, but that the failure was not a factor in Herbst’s death. The doctor and hospital settled the case for $250,000. Plaintiffs then sued the Patient’s Compensation Fund for excess damages of $1 million.
At trial in Marion County, the judge would not allow the PCF to introduce expert testimony indicating that even with proper care, Herbst had a less than a 10 percent chance of surviving hospitalization, and if he survived, he would have been unable to return to work.
The court’s decision was based on a controversial provision in the Medical Malpractice Act, which states that once a case is settled, liability has been established and cannot be argued by the PCF.
Plaintiffs argued – and the trial court agreed – that the expert testimony was an impermissible attempt to argue liability. The court concluded that damages exceeded $2.5 million and awarded the estate the statutory maximum of $1 million from the PCF.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court. However, the PCF appealed to the Indiana Supreme Court, and the ISMA filed an amicus curiae brief as an interested third party. The Supreme Court accepted the case.
Subsequently, the Supreme Court agreed with the PCF that its expert testimony was improperly excluded, noting the patient’s increased risk of death could be considered both liability and damages arguments.
The ISMA argued it was both legally improper and unfair to hold the physician liable for damages his actions did not cause. Again, the Supreme Court agreed.
The court ruled that assuming “…any malpractice by either provider increased his chance of harm by no more than 10 percent,… the Fund is liable for only 10 percent of the value of his survival. Moreover, if with proper care Herbst still had no chance of working in the future, no lost wages are recoverable from the Fund.”
Reed noted, “Here, the plaintiff was seeking 100 percent damages from a doctor who was, perhaps, only 10 percent responsible for the outcome.”
The court speaks
The court noted that Indiana’s Medical Malpractice Act was “plainly not intended to expand recovery for medical malpractice,” as plaintiffs had attempted to do. The Court of Appeals had noted the “potential for unjust outcomes” in these types of cases but suggested that providers “should not be overly eager to settle such claims.”
The Supreme Court squarely disagreed and stated these are the exact types of cases providers are incentivized to settle. Therefore, relying on doctors to refuse to settle claims does not constitute an “adequate safeguard against invasion of the Fund.”
The case has been remanded to the trial court for a damages determination.
“The Supreme Court’s opinion sends a strong message that damages must always be proportionate to a physician’s liability,” said Reed. “This case fairly restored physicians – as well as the PCF – to the same playing field as other tortfeasors and helped protect the integrity of the Fund.”
This is a benefit to all physicians practicing in Indiana and keeps rewards proportionate to fault.
Labels: legal, malpractice
posted by Anonymous at 5:36 AM
2 Comments:
Everyone needs to be responsible for their own health. And they should choose a physician whom they trust. Frivilous lawsuits take away from good healthcare. I supported Pres Bush when he put a cap on medical malpractice lawsuits.
Unfortunately now we are headed for Socialized Medicine.
I could go on any on all day on this one, but will only offer that in my experience, its amusing that many clients who have come to see me (from all walks of life) always tell me that they think there are too many "frivolous lawsuits" and they've never considered suing anyone themselves until whatever calamitous event happened to them, which at that point seems to have made it okay in their minds.
From a staunch Republican party official, to several physicians (I have more than one physician client who has asked me to sue another physician for malpractice), to a minister - all of whom wanted to make darn sure I knew they were "strongly opposed" to lawsuits - but who quickly changed their tune when it was their family who was been harmed.
I suspect folks like the anonymous poster above would be fall right in line as well.
Its kind of like the difference in minor surgery and major surgery - its all minor surgery until you're the patient - then its major surgery. Its only "frivolous" until its your family member...
Cheers.
Post a Comment
<< Home