Murphy v. Mortell
1997 WL 547508, 684 N.E.2d 1185, 1997 Ind. App. LEXIS 1249 (1997)
Rule of Law:
An intentional tort committed by a health care provider against a patient, even within a hospital setting, does not fall under the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act unless the conduct is related to the promotion of the patient's health or the provider's exercise of professional expertise, skill, or judgment.
Facts:
- On October 14, 1991, Angela Murphy and her father were involved in an automobile accident in Indianapolis, resulting in her father's death and Murphy being transported to Wishard Hospital in critical condition.
- The following day, while Murphy was unconscious and restrained in Wishard's Surgical Intensive Care Unit, critical care respiratory therapy technician Ira Barger molested her.
- Ira Barger subsequently pleaded guilty to sexual battery.
- On September 9, 1993, Murphy, Wishard Hospital, and Wishard's insurer, PHICO, entered into a settlement agreement for $100,880, which was paid under Wishard’s general liability insurance coverage.
Procedural Posture:
- On March 3, 1992, Angela Murphy's counsel sent a tort claim notice to Wishard Memorial Hospital, the Board of County Commissioners, Health and Hospital Corporation, and Indiana University Hospital.
- On September 9, 1993, Murphy, Wishard, and Wishard's insurer (PHICO) entered into a settlement agreement for $100,880.
- On October 18, 1993, Murphy filed a "Petition for Payment of Excess Damages from Patient’s Compensation Fund" in the trial court, seeking $650,000 from the fund.
- Wishard’s counsel filed an appearance and a disclaimer of interest.
- John F. Mortell, Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Insurance, filed an answer raising the affirmative defense that Murphy's claim was for general negligence or premises liability, not medical malpractice.
- Murphy and Commissioner Mortell both filed motions for summary judgment.
- The trial court held a hearing on the motions and granted Commissioner Mortell's motion for summary judgment, denying Murphy's motion, finding that Murphy's claim was not for medical malpractice and she was not entitled to recover from the Patient's Compensation Fund.
- Angela Murphy appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment.
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 Angela Murphy's claim for sexual battery against a hospital employee fall within the purview of the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act, thereby entitling her to recover excess damages from the Patient's Compensation Fund?
Opinions:
Majority - Darden, Judge
No, Angela Murphy's claim for sexual battery against a hospital employee does not fall within the purview of the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act, because the employee's conduct was not related to the promotion of her health or the exercise of professional skill. The court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner. The Indiana Medical Malpractice Act pertains to "curative or salutary conduct" of a health care provider acting within their professional capacity and is designed to exclude conduct "unrelated to the promotion of a patient’s health or the provider’s exercise of professional expertise, skill, or judgment." Citing Doe by Roe v. Madison Center Hospital, the court emphasized that the mere location of the occurrence in a health care facility does not automatically transform the conduct into the rendition of health care or professional services without a causal connection between the conduct and the nature of the patient and health care provider relationship. The sexual molestation by Barger, although it occurred during Murphy’s confinement in the hospital, was not designed to promote her health and did not involve Barger’s use of skill or expertise as a health care provider. The court found that such allegations do not describe professional services and present factual issues capable of resolution by a jury without the application of a medical standard of care, making them similar to the claims in Doe which were also found not to fall under the Act.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the scope of the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act, establishing that not all harm occurring in a hospital or by a health care provider constitutes medical malpractice. It reinforces that intentional torts, even by a hospital employee, generally fall outside the Act unless directly related to the provision of healthcare, thereby impacting claims seeking recovery from the Patient's Compensation Fund. This distinction is crucial for determining the appropriate legal avenue and potential remedies for injured patients, guiding future courts in differentiating between general negligence/intentional torts and medical malpractice.
