Kuester v. Inman
758 NE2d 96, 2001 WL 1450754 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A claim against a healthcare provider, even if framed as fraud, falls under the scope of a state's Medical Malpractice Act if the alleged misconduct relates to the provider's exercise of professional expertise, skill, or judgment regarding a course of treatment. The determination of whether a doctor's representations about a procedure's propriety and effectiveness are false is fundamentally a question of medical malpractice.
Facts:
- In April 1997, Sharon Kuester contacted the LiteLife program at Winona Memorial Hospital about its bariatric surgery program.
- Kuester provided a detailed medical history to hospital staff via a phone interview and completed patient information and insurance authorization forms.
- Based on this information, the hospital scheduled Kuester for a bariatric surgery consultation with Dr. Margaret M. Inman.
- At a May 1997 consultation, Dr. Inman represented to Kuester that the LiteLife program was the best in Indiana and that the silastic ring vertical gastroplasty procedure was safer than the alternative Roux-en-Y procedure.
- Relying on Dr. Inman's representations, Kuester underwent the silastic ring vertical gastroplasty surgery in July 1997.
- During the procedure, surgeons perforated Kuester's stomach, resulting in complications and significant injury.
Procedural Posture:
- Sharon and Daniel Kuester filed a proposed medical malpractice complaint with the Indiana Department of Insurance.
- The Kuesters subsequently filed a separate civil fraud action against Dr. Inman and other healthcare providers (Defendants) in Marion Superior Court, a state trial court.
- The Defendants filed a Trial Rule 12(B)(1) motion to dismiss the fraud complaint, arguing the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the claim was subject to the Medical Malpractice Act.
- After a hearing based on a 'paper record' with arguments from counsel, the trial court granted the Defendants' motion and dismissed the Kuesters' complaint without prejudice.
- The Kuesters (Appellants) appealed the dismissal to the Court of Appeals of Indiana, with the healthcare providers as Appellees.
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 patient's claim of fraudulent misrepresentation against a physician regarding the safety and efficacy of a medical procedure fall under the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act, thereby requiring submission to a medical review panel before a court can exercise jurisdiction?
Opinions:
Majority - Najam, J.
Yes, a patient's claim of fraudulent misrepresentation regarding a medical procedure falls under the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act. The court reasoned that a physician-patient relationship was established prior to the consultation, not by physical examination, but when the hospital, for Kuester's benefit, took her medical history and scheduled her appointment with Dr. Inman. The court then determined that Dr. Inman's alleged misrepresentations were not unrelated to her professional expertise or the promotion of Kuester's health. To prove the statements were fraudulent, the Kuesters would have to introduce evidence about the medical propriety and effectiveness of the procedure, which the court described as 'the quintessence of a medical malpractice case.' Therefore, the claim, though styled as fraud, is substantively a claim for medical malpractice and is subject to the Act's procedural requirement of a preliminary review by a medical panel.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the broad scope of state medical malpractice acts, preventing plaintiffs from circumventing statutory pre-litigation requirements, such as review panels, by framing their claims as common law torts like fraud. It clarifies that if the core of a dispute requires an evaluation of the medical standard of care or a provider's professional judgment, it will be treated as a malpractice claim regardless of its label. This holding solidifies the gatekeeping role of medical review panels and makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to pursue parallel tort actions against healthcare providers for conduct that is intertwined with the provision of medical care and advice.
