Hassan v. Begley
836 N.E.2d 303, 2005 WL 2807424, 2005 Ind. App. LEXIS 2029 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An initial negligent act is not a proximate cause of an injury if a subsequent, unforeseeable negligent act by a third party serves as an intervening and superseding cause that directly results in the harm.
Facts:
- Willie Begley, 67, went to the White County Memorial Hospital emergency room complaining of severe abdominal pain, vomiting, and a distended abdomen.
- Dr. Philip Hassan, the emergency room physician, examined Begley, assessed his condition as 'severe to critical,' and noted a possible bowel obstruction.
- Dr. Hassan arranged for Begley to be admitted to the hospital for a surgical consult but did not order the placement of a nasogastric (NG) tube.
- After being admitted to the special care unit under the care of other physicians, Begley's condition worsened and another doctor, Dr. Johnson, ordered an NG tube.
- At approximately 2:00 p.m., hospital nurses attempted to place the NG tube, but it was later determined that it had been incorrectly placed.
- Expert testimony indicated the NG tube was misplaced on two separate occasions, depriving Begley of oxygen.
- At 5:00 p.m., Begley went into pulmonary arrest and was pronounced dead at 6:12 p.m.
Procedural Posture:
- Norma Begley, representing her deceased husband's estate, filed a proposed complaint for medical malpractice with the Indiana Department of Insurance against Dr. Hassan and others.
- A Medical Review Panel issued a unanimous opinion finding that Dr. Hassan did not breach the standard of care and that his conduct was not a factor in Begley's death.
- Begley then filed a complaint against Dr. Hassan and the other defendants in the state trial court.
- Dr. Hassan filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing there was no genuine issue of material fact regarding proximate causation.
- The trial court denied Dr. Hassan's motion for summary judgment.
- Dr. Hassan filed an interlocutory appeal of the denial, and the Court of Appeals of Indiana accepted jurisdiction.
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 an emergency room physician's failure to place a nasogastric (NG) tube constitute a proximate cause of a patient's death when subsequent medical staff later negligently misplace the tube, which is the direct cause of death?
Opinions:
Majority - Baker, J.
No. The physician's failure to place the NG tube does not constitute a proximate cause of death because the subsequent, unforeseeable misplacement of the tube by other hospital staff was an intervening and superseding cause. The court reasoned that for liability to attach, the defendant's conduct must be a direct cause of the harm, not merely an 'indirect' cause. Here, the plaintiff's own expert testified that Dr. Hassan's failure to place the tube only 'indirectly' contributed to the death. The direct cause was the nurses' misplacement of the tube hours later, which deprived Begley of oxygen. This subsequent act of negligence was not a foreseeable consequence of Dr. Hassan's initial omission, thereby breaking the chain of causation and relieving Dr. Hassan of liability.
Dissenting - Riley, J.
Yes. The physician's failure to place the NG tube could be considered a proximate cause of death, and the issue should be decided by a jury, not by a judge on summary judgment. The dissent argued that proximate cause is generally a question of fact for the jury. A defendant's negligence need only be 'a' proximate cause, not the sole cause. Given that Dr. Hassan knew Begley's condition was 'severe to critical,' a reasonable jury could find that it was foreseeable that his failure to provide standard care could contribute to a chain of events leading to the patient's death, making the subsequent negligence of others a concurrent, rather than superseding, cause.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the doctrine of superseding cause within medical malpractice litigation, particularly insulating an initial physician from liability when a subsequent, distinct act of negligence occurs. It clarifies that the foreseeability of a subsequent negligent act is the crucial element in determining whether the chain of causation is broken. The ruling makes it more challenging for plaintiffs to hold an initial treating physician responsible when another provider's later error is the more direct and immediate cause of the injury, requiring plaintiffs to demonstrate that the subsequent malpractice was a reasonably predictable outcome of the initial negligence.
