Howard Regional Health System v. Gordon
952 N.E.2d 182, 2011 WL 3501882, 2011 Ind. LEXIS 689 (2011)
Rule of Law:
Indiana law does not recognize an independent tort for spoliation of evidence, whether characterized as first-party or third-party, particularly when the underlying actions are subject to the Medical Malpractice Act and where statutory remedies for record maintenance violations are limited to disciplinary sanctions.
Facts:
- On January 6, 1999, Lisa Gordon was admitted to Howard Community Hospital in labor, under the care of Dr. Richard A. Gard.
- On January 7, 1999, Dr. Gard delivered Jacob Gordon by caesarian section after determining the baby was in a breech position.
- Sometime after birth, Jacob suffered numerous serious disorders, which his parents believed were caused by substandard medical care at the time of his birth.
- In December 2003 and into 2004, counsel for Lisa Gordon began requesting medical records from Howard Community Hospital.
- Additional requests for records were made after gaps became apparent in the records turned over by the Hospital.
- The Hospital stated in affidavits dated June 5, 2006, that certain records could not be located, including nursing and narrative notes, labor flow records, fetal heart monitor strips, and peri-operative nurses’ notes from Jacob’s birth.
Procedural Posture:
- In September 2005, the Gordons filed a complaint for damages with the Indiana Department of Insurance against Howard Regional Health System for medical negligence, as required by the Medical Malpractice Act.
- On March 27, 2006, the Gordons filed a motion to compel discovery in Howard Circuit Court.
- In September 2006, the Gordons filed an amended complaint with the Indiana Department of Insurance, adding Dr. Gard, Dr. Charles G. Marler, and Community Family Health Center as defendants, and including a count for third-party spoliation of evidence against Howard Regional Health System.
- The Gordons moved for partial summary judgment against Howard Regional Health System in Howard Circuit Court solely on the third-party spoliation claim (Count II).
- Howard Regional Health System filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment.
- The trial court (Howard Circuit Court) granted the Gordons' motion for partial summary judgment, concluding the Hospital had a duty to maintain records and a separate cause of action for failure to do so existed under Indiana law, and authorized an interlocutory appeal by Howard Regional Health System.
- Howard Regional Health System appealed the trial court's decision, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling.
- The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer, thus vacating the opinion of the 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 Indiana law recognize an independent tort for spoliation of medical records by a hospital, which is also a defendant in a medical malpractice claim, where the records are alleged to be necessary for a claim against another healthcare provider?
Opinions:
Majority - Shepard, Chief Justice
No, Indiana law does not recognize an independent tort for spoliation of medical records by a hospital, even when it is also a defendant in a medical malpractice claim and the records are alleged to be necessary for a claim against another healthcare provider. The court first determined that the Gordons' spoliation claim, as it pertains to the maintenance of medical records, falls within the general scope of the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act because such maintenance is "closely entwined with health care" and significantly impacts patient treatment and diagnosis. The court then examined whether Indiana Code Section 16-39-7-1, concerning the maintenance of health records, creates a private right of action. Analyzing legislative intent and statutory construction, the court found no implied private right of action for civil damages, noting that the statute, as it existed, provided only for disciplinary sanctions for violations, unlike another section that explicitly created civil liability for x-ray records. The later addition of subsection (d) in 2009 was interpreted as a grant of immunity related to disaster emergencies, not the creation of a private remedy. Finally, the court held that the Gordons' claim was essentially one for "first-party" spoliation, despite being styled as "third-party" to target the Hospital for hindering a claim against Dr. Gard. As the Hospital was a primary defendant in the underlying medical malpractice suit, distinguishing between it and a non-party blurs the established definition. Relying on its previous decisions in Gribben v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (declining first-party spoliation) and Glotzbach v. Froman (declining third-party spoliation in a workers' compensation context due to speculative damages), the court concluded that existing remedies, such as discovery sanctions and adverse inference instructions, are sufficient to address spoliation within the context of the main litigation. The court noted that further proceedings could determine if litigation sanctions were warranted against the Hospital.
Concurring - Dickson, Justice
Yes, the trial court's grant of partial summary judgment for the Gordons on the spoliation claim should be reversed, but for different reasons than the majority; Indiana common law should not be expanded to permit third-party spoliation claims due to the speculative nature of proximate cause and damages. Justice Dickson disagreed with the majority's finding that the spoliation claim fell under the Medical Malpractice Act, arguing that the Hospital's alleged misconduct (losing records) did not involve an exercise of professional medical judgment or care. He also disagreed with the majority's conclusion that Indiana Code Section 16-39-7-1 does not create a private right of action for negligence per se, instead aligning with the Court of Appeals that a breach of the duty to maintain records could constitute negligence per se. Justice Dickson further departed from the majority's characterization of the claim as entirely first-party spoliation, arguing that when the Hospital's loss of records impaired the Gordons' claims against non-Hospital defendants (like Dr. Gard), such claims constituted third-party spoliation. He contended that it would be inappropriate to subject non-Hospital defendants to adverse inferences or sanctions for the Hospital's misconduct. Despite these disagreements, Justice Dickson concurred in the reversal of the partial summary judgment because he believed that Indiana common law should not recognize third-party spoliation claims. Citing Glotzbach v. Froman, he emphasized the "highly speculative" nature of proving causation and damages in such claims, which requires determining the outcome of a hypothetical lawsuit, deeming this a "fatal obstacle" to such claims.
Analysis:
This case clarifies that Indiana law does not recognize an independent tort for spoliation of evidence, whether by a party (first-party) or a non-party (third-party), and reinforces the principle that claims closely related to medical care fall under the Medical Malpractice Act, requiring review by a medical review panel. It also establishes that the statute for maintaining medical records (Ind. Code § 16-39-7-1) does not create a private right of action for civil damages, limiting recourse to disciplinary sanctions. The decision significantly impacts plaintiffs seeking damages for lost evidence in medical malpractice cases, directing them toward existing discovery sanctions and adverse inference instructions rather than a standalone tort, and highlights the high bar for proving speculative damages and causation in such claims.
