Mullins v. Parkview Hospital, Inc.
2007 Ind. LEXIS 287, 865 N.E.2d 608, 2007 WL 1271411 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a medical battery claim to be successful, the plaintiff must prove the defendant acted with the intent to cause a harmful or offensive contact. A subordinate medical professional, such as a student, who acts under the direct supervision and authority of a licensed physician does not possess the requisite intent for battery, even if the contact was non-consensual and resulted in harm.
Facts:
- Prior to her hysterectomy, Ruth Mullins modified her surgical consent form, explicitly striking out language that would permit the presence of healthcare learners during her procedure.
- On the day of the surgery, after Mullins was under general anesthesia, LaRea Van-Hoey, an EMT student, entered the operating room with her preceptor.
- Van-Hoey's training program required her to perform a specific number of live patient intubations.
- The preceptor asked the attending anesthesiologist, Dr. Kathryn Carboneau, if Van-Hoey could practice an intubation on Mullins, and Dr. Carboneau gave her permission.
- Van-Hoey made several unsuccessful attempts to intubate Mullins.
- Following Van-Hoey's final attempt, both Dr. Carboneau and the surgeon, Dr. Eastlund, observed blood on the tip of her laryngoscope.
- Two days later, medical tests revealed that Ruth Mullins' esophagus had been lacerated during the intubation attempts, necessitating further surgery and an extended recovery.
Procedural Posture:
- Ruth and Johnce Mullins, Jr. filed a complaint in an Indiana trial court against LaRea Van-Hoey, several doctors, and a hospital, alleging battery and other claims.
- The defendants moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted, dismissing all claims.
- The Mullinses, as appellants, appealed the decision to the Indiana Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the hospital but reversed the dismissal of the battery claim against Van-Hoey and the doctors, allowing that claim to proceed.
- Van-Hoey, as petitioner, sought transfer to the Indiana Supreme Court to review the Court of Appeals' decision regarding her liability for battery.
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 EMT student commit battery when she attempts a medical procedure on an anesthetized patient with the permission of supervising physicians, but without the patient's specific consent, if she lacks the intent to cause a harmful or offensive contact?
Opinions:
Majority - Sullivan, J.
No. An EMT student does not commit battery when she attempts a medical procedure under these circumstances because the essential element of intent is missing. The tort of battery requires that the actor 'acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact.' The court found no evidence that Van-Hoey intended to harm Mullins. Instead, the facts showed she was a student following her curriculum and the direct instructions of her superiors, including her preceptor and the anesthesiologist, Dr. Carboneau. The court held that the duty to obtain informed consent rests with the physician, not with a student acting under the physician's authority. Van-Hoey was entitled to rely on the permission granted by the anesthesiologist and was under no independent obligation to inquire about the specific terms of Mullins's consent. Because the Mullinses failed to present any evidence showing Van-Hoey intended to cause a harmful or offensive contact, their battery claim fails as a matter of law.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the application of the intent element for battery in a medical context, particularly for trainees and subordinate staff. It reinforces the legal principle that the primary duty to obtain informed consent rests with the treating physician, thereby protecting supervised personnel who act in good faith under a physician's authority. The ruling distinguishes between a harmful outcome from a lack of skill, which may constitute negligence, and a harmful outcome from an intentional tort like battery. This precedent makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to succeed on battery claims against students and other non-physician staff unless they can prove a specific intent to cause harm, not just an intent to make contact.
