Indiana Department of Insurance v. Everhart
2012 Ind. LEXIS 10, 960 N.E.2d 129, 2012 WL 169777 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In medical malpractice cases involving joint tortfeasors, the common law one-satisfaction rule applies, requiring a court to calculate damages by taking the plaintiff's total injuries and deducting, pro tanto, any amounts received in settlement from other tortfeasors.
Facts:
- Larry B. Perkins, an employee of Standard Forwarding Company, Inc., crashed his semi-truck into a motorcycle ridden by James K. Everhart, Jr.
- Everhart sustained massive injuries from the accident, but paramedics were able to control his bleeding at the scene.
- In the ambulance, Everhart was conscious, spoke to the EMTs, and his score on the Glasgow Coma Scale improved significantly, leading paramedics to expect his survival.
- At the hospital, Everhart came under the care of Dr. C. Bilston Clarke in the emergency room.
- Despite Everhart's severe bleeding from the accident, Dr. Clarke did not immediately administer a blood transfusion.
- Everhart subsequently suffered a cardiac arrest and died while under Dr. Clarke's care.
- Expert testimony established that with proper medical care, Everhart would have had an eighty percent chance of surviving his injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Robin Everhart sued the truck driver, Larry Perkins, and his employer, Standard Forwarding, for wrongful death; this claim was settled for $1.9 million.
- Everhart amended her complaint, adding a wrongful death claim against Dr. C. Bilston Clarke, which was settled for a present value of $187,001.
- Everhart then filed a third amended complaint in the Vigo Superior Court (trial court) against the Indiana Patient's Compensation Fund (PCF) to recover excess damages.
- The trial court, after a bench trial, found that Everhart's total damages exceeded $3.15 million and awarded her the statutory maximum of $1 million in excess damages from the PCF, rejecting the PCF's request for a proportional reduction.
- The PCF, as appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Indiana Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, holding that damages should be apportioned, and remanded the case.
- The Indiana Supreme Court granted Everhart's petition to transfer, vacating the Court of Appeals' opinion.
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 proportional damage calculation from Cahoon v. Cummings, which applies when medical negligence reduces a patient's less-than-even chance of survival, also apply to reduce a damage award when the negligence reduces a patient's better-than-even chance of survival?
Opinions:
Majority - Shepard, Chief Justice
No. The proportional damage calculation for a 'loss of chance' claim does not apply where a patient had a better-than-even chance of survival and traditional causation can be established. Instead, where multiple tortfeasors cause an indivisible harm, traditional common law rules of joint and several liability and set-offs govern the calculation of damages. The court reasoned that the 'loss of chance' doctrine, established in cases like Mayhue and Cahoon, was specifically designed for situations where a plaintiff could not prove traditional cause-in-fact because the patient's chance of survival was already below 50%. Here, Everhart had an 80% chance of survival, so traditional causation could be proven. The court identified the truck driver (Perkins) and the physician (Dr. Clarke) as joint tortfeasors whose independent negligent acts caused a single, indivisible harm—Everhart's death. Because medical malpractice claims are exempt from Indiana's Comparative Fault Act, common law joint and several liability principles, including the one-satisfaction rule for set-offs, apply. Under this rule, the court must reduce the total damage award by the amount of any prior settlements, which in this case still left damages exceeding the statutory cap payable by the Patient's Compensation Fund.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the method for calculating damages in Indiana medical malpractice cases involving multiple tortfeasors, such as an initial accident followed by negligent medical care. By sidestepping the extension of the 'loss of chance' doctrine to better-than-even survival cases, the court affirmed that traditional joint and several liability and set-off principles remain the governing framework. The ruling prevents the Patient's Compensation Fund from using a proportional 'loss of chance' argument to reduce its liability when a physician is one of two joint tortfeasors. This preserves the common law one-satisfaction principle, ensuring plaintiffs can receive a full recovery for indivisible harm while preventing double recovery.
