B.R. ex rel. Todd v. State
2013 Ind. App. LEXIS 582, 1 N.E.3d 708, 2013 WL 6122271 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A claim against a qualified health care provider does not fall under the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act if the alleged negligence stems from conduct unrelated to the promotion of a patient's health or the exercise of professional medical judgment. When the conduct at issue, such as foster care placement and supervision, does not require medical expertise and can be evaluated by a lay jury, the claim sounds in ordinary negligence, not medical malpractice.
Facts:
- The Adult and Child Mental Health Center ("the Health Center") contracted with the Indiana Department of Child Services ("DCS") to, among other things, facilitate therapeutic foster care placements.
- In July 2007, DCS placed three-year-old B.R. in therapeutic foster care and referred him to the Health Center for a mental health assessment.
- B.R. was diagnosed with neglect and disruptive behavior disorder and placed with therapeutic foster parents, Michelle Foster and Darrell Riley.
- At Foster's request for respite care, a Health Center case manager arranged for B.R. to stay with respite foster parents Mark and Penny Hughes for the weekend of September 21, 2007.
- On September 22, 2007, B.R. ran from the Hugheses' residence onto an adjacent property and entered a swimming pool.
- B.R. was found non-responsive in the pool and suffered catastrophic brain damage as a result of the near-drowning.
Procedural Posture:
- B.R.'s biological parents filed complaints in a state trial court against the respite foster parents and their neighbor.
- The trial court ordered the filing of a joint complaint, which added several defendants, including the Health Center.
- B.R., through his guardian, later filed a second amended complaint for damages against the Health Center.
- The Health Center filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Trial Rule 12(B)(1).
- The Health Center argued that B.R.'s claim was a medical malpractice claim that must first be submitted to a medical review panel under the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act.
- The trial court granted the Health Center's motion to dismiss.
- B.R., as the appellant, appealed the trial court's dismissal to the Indiana Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a mental health center's placement and supervision of a child in therapeutic foster care constitute "health care" under the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act, thereby requiring a claim of negligence related to that placement to first be submitted to a medical review panel before a lawsuit can be filed in court?
Opinions:
Majority - Mathias, Judge.
No. The placement and supervision of a child in foster care does not constitute "health care" under the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act because such actions are not curative conduct requiring professional medical expertise. The court reasoned that the Act must be strictly construed and only applies to a provider's conduct while acting in a professional capacity as a provider of medical services. The determinative factor is not the provider's status as a healthcare entity, but whether the specific service required the exercise of professional medical skill or judgment. Here, the foster care placement decision was made by a case manager, not a medical professional, and is a task routinely performed by individuals without medical training. Citing precedents like OB-GYN Associates v. Ransbottom, the court found that because the alleged negligence—improper placement and failure to warn of B.R.'s tendency to run—is within the understanding of an average lay juror, it does not require the expert analysis of a medical review panel. Therefore, the claim sounds in ordinary negligence and falls outside the purview of the Act.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the critical distinction between ordinary negligence and medical malpractice for organizations that provide both medical and non-medical social services. The ruling establishes that the nature of the specific act or service, rather than the general status of the provider, determines whether the Medical Malpractice Act's procedural requirements apply. This prevents healthcare entities from using the Act as a shield against liability for negligence in their administrative or custodial functions that do not involve professional medical judgment. It ensures that claimants whose injuries result from non-medical conduct can seek redress directly in court without the prerequisite step of a medical review panel, which is designed for cases requiring specialized medical knowledge.
Unlock the full brief for B.R. ex rel. Todd v. State