Goleski v. Fritz
2002 WL 1060876, 768 N.E.2d 889, 2002 Ind. LEXIS 465 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A spouse's derivative claims for medical malpractice, such as for loss of consortium, survive the death of that spouse and may be pursued by the representative of the spouse's estate under Indiana's Survival Statute.
Facts:
- On March 21, 1995, Lawrence Vetter was admitted to Starke Memorial Hospital.
- Lawrence was treated by physicians Walter Fritz, M.J. Subba Rao, Thach Nguyen, Usha Sharma, and Donald Gibertini.
- Lawrence Vetter died on March 22, 1995, the day after his admission.
- His wife, Dorothy Vetter, sought damages for lost financial support, love, affection, and companionship resulting from his death.
- Dorothy Vetter died from causes unrelated to her husband's death before her malpractice claim against the providers was fully resolved.
Procedural Posture:
- Dorothy Vetter, Lawrence's wife, filed a proposed complaint with the Indiana Department of Insurance against the hospital and physicians.
- A medical review panel issued a mixed opinion on the defendants' conduct.
- Dorothy Vetter died before the claim review process was completed.
- Nadine Goleski was appointed personal representative of Dorothy's estate and filed an amended malpractice claim, which later became a lawsuit in state trial court (Starke Circuit Court).
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant physicians and hospital.
- Goleski, as appellant, appealed the summary judgment to the Indiana Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision in a memorandum opinion, with one judge dissenting.
- Goleski petitioned the Indiana Supreme Court for transfer of 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 a spouse's derivative claim for medical malpractice, initiated under the Medical Malpractice Act, survive the death of that spouse and pass to their estate under the Survival Statute?
Opinions:
Majority - Boehm, Justice
Yes, a spouse's derivative claim for medical malpractice survives their death. Under the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act, a person with a derivative claim, like Dorothy Vetter's claim for loss of consortium as a 'relative,' is considered a 'patient' with a valid cause of action. The Indiana Survival Statute explicitly provides that most causes of action survive the death of the claimant and may be brought by their 'representative.' Dorothy's claims do not fall into the statute's exceptions for claims that abate upon death (e.g., libel, slander, or personal injuries to the deceased). Even if her claims were considered 'personal injuries' to her, they would still survive because she died from causes other than those injuries. Therefore, upon Dorothy's death, her existing cause of action passed to her estate, and Nadine Goleski, as the personal representative of Dorothy's estate, can properly continue the claim.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the intersection of Indiana's Medical Malpractice Act, Survival Statute, and Wrongful Death Act, ensuring that a valid derivative claim is not extinguished by the claimant's death during protracted litigation. By holding that a derivative claimant is a 'patient' under the malpractice act whose claim can be preserved by the Survival Statute, the court prevents medical providers from escaping liability simply due to the fortuitous death of the victim's next-of-kin. The ruling establishes that while a wrongful death claim has strict requirements regarding the decedent's estate, a separate derivative claim is the personal property of the claimant and can pass to their own estate, creating an alternate path to recovery.
