Professional Negligence Law Reporter

The Indiana Supreme Court held that the state’s Medical Malpractice Act (MMA) applies to a third party who, although not receiving medical care from a qualified health care provider, was injured by the provider’s negligent treatment of someone else.

Sylvia Watson ran a red light and crashed into another vehicle. The other driver and her daughter were killed, as was Watson. Jeffrey Cutchin, the other driver’s husband and the daughter’s father, sued a physician and clinic, alleging medical malpractice. The plaintiff alleged the physician had breached the standard of care by failing to warn Watson not to operate a vehicle while under the influence of prescribed medications and adjust her medications to address her muscle control issues. The district court held a settlement conference, and Cutchin settled with the clinic and physician. The plaintiff then sought excess damages from the Indiana Patient’s Compensation Fund, which asserted that it had no liability because the plaintiff’s claim was not covered by the MMA. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and the district court entered judgment for the Fund. Cutchin appealed to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which certified two questions to the Indiana high court, including whether the MMA applies to claims brought against qualified providers for individuals who did not receive medical care from the provider but who are injured as a result of the provider’s negligence in treating someone else.

Answering in the affirmative, the court found that under the plain meaning of the term “patient” in the text of the MMA, Ind. Code §34-18-2-22, a statutory patient who is an eligible claimant under the act includes a traditional patient who has a physician-patient relationship with the provider and third parties with a malpractice-related claim against a health care provider under state law. Here, the court said, although the plaintiff is not a traditional patient of the defendant physician or clinic, he is nevertheless considered a statutory patient because he has a wrongful death claim resulting from the defendants’ alleged malpractice toward Watson. The court rejected the Fund’s argument that the legislature had intended a generic negligence claim to attach to a third party injured by a provider’s malpractice toward a traditional patient. This view ignores the structure and text of the statute, the court found.

Citation: Cutchin v. Beard, 171 N.E.3d 991 (Ind. 2021).

Plaintiff counsel: Patrick Shoulders, Jean Blanton, and L. Katherine Boren, all of Evansville, Ind.