Chamberlain v. Walpole
2005 WL 427981, 822 N.E.2d 959, 2005 Ind. LEXIS 143 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Indiana Medical Malpractice Act (MMA) is a procedural statute that does not create a substantive cause of action for wrongful death damages that are otherwise barred by the limitations of the Indiana Wrongful Death Act (WDA).
Facts:
- Richard Walpole’s father underwent surgery for a hernia repair.
- Following the surgery, Walpole's father died.
- Walpole was the decedent's adult son and was not financially dependent upon him.
- Walpole sought to recover damages from the healthcare providers for, among other things, the loss of his father’s love, care, affection, and companionship.
Procedural Posture:
- Richard Walpole filed a proposed medical malpractice complaint with the Indiana Department of Insurance against several physicians and hospitals.
- The defendant physicians filed a motion for preliminary determination in the Allen Superior Court (the trial court), arguing the Wrongful Death Act barred Walpole's claim for non-pecuniary damages.
- The trial court denied the defendants' motion.
- The trial court certified its order for an interlocutory appeal.
- The defendants (appellants) appealed to the Indiana Court of Appeals, with Walpole as the appellee.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, with one judge dissenting.
- The Indiana Supreme Court granted the defendants' petition to transfer the case.
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 the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act create a substantive cause of action allowing a non-dependent adult child to recover non-pecuniary damages for the wrongful death of a parent, even when such recovery is precluded by the Indiana Wrongful Death Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Boehm, J.
No, the Medical Malpractice Act does not create a new substantive cause of action independent of the Wrongful Death Act. An action for wrongful death is purely statutory and must be strictly construed according to the terms of the Wrongful Death Act (WDA). The WDA does not permit a non-dependent adult child, like Walpole, to recover non-pecuniary damages. The Medical Malpractice Act (MMA) is a procedural statute designed to curtail, not expand, medical malpractice liability. The MMA's definition of a 'patient' to include individuals with 'derivative claims' merely requires that any otherwise existing and recognized claim for medical malpractice must proceed through the MMA's procedural framework, such as review by a medical panel. It does not create new substantive rights or new categories of damages that are unavailable under the controlling substantive law, which in this case is the WDA. Previous cases like McKnight and Goleski only addressed the procedural mechanisms for bringing claims that were already substantively valid under the WDA, and do not support the creation of a new cause of action under the MMA.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the role of the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act as a procedural, rather than substantive, statute. It prevents plaintiffs from using the MMA as an 'end-run' around the specific limitations on damages and claimants established in the Wrongful Death Act. The ruling reinforces the principle that wrongful death actions are creatures of statute and will be strictly construed, thereby limiting the scope of liability for healthcare providers in cases involving decedents without surviving spouses or dependents. This clarifies that the source of a right to recover for wrongful death is the WDA, while the MMA merely dictates the process for pursuing such a claim when it arises from medical negligence.
