Patel v. Barker
2001 WL 21527, 742 NE2d 28, 2001 Ind. App. LEXIS 5 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act, a patient may receive a separate recovery up to the statutory damages cap for each distinct act of malpractice that results in a distinct injury, even if the multiple acts of malpractice occur within a single surgical procedure.
Facts:
- Mary Barker was diagnosed with colon malignancy and was referred to Dr. R.C. Patel for surgery.
- Patel performed a colon resection surgery on Barker.
- During the surgery, Patel improperly sutured Barker's colon, which subsequently caused it to leak into her abdominal cavity.
- Also during the same surgery, Patel negligently left a hemo-clip on Barker's ureter, a separate organ.
- The leaking colon required a second surgery to create a colostomy.
- The misplaced hemo-clip on the ureter required a third surgery, performed by different surgeons, to remove the clip and reverse the colostomy.
Procedural Posture:
- Mary Barker filed a medical malpractice suit against Dr. R.C. Patel in an Indiana trial court.
- The case was tried before a jury, which returned a general verdict awarding Barker $1,800,000 in damages.
- The trial court, treating the case as two separate acts of malpractice, reduced the award to $1,500,000 to comply with the statutory cap of $750,000 per act.
- Dr. Patel, as appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Indiana Court of Appeals, with Mary Barker as the appellee.
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 Indiana Medical Malpractice Act permit a patient to recover up to the statutory damages cap for each of two separate injuries caused by two distinct acts of negligence that occurred during a single surgical procedure?
Opinions:
Majority - Kirsch, Judge
Yes, the Act permits separate recoveries. The statutory limitation on recovery applies to 'an injury or death,' not 'an act of malpractice.' The court's precedent allows for only one recovery when multiple acts lead to a single injury, but does not preclude separate recoveries when separate and distinct acts of malpractice cause separate and distinct injuries. Here, Barker suffered two distinct injuries to two separate body systems (digestive and urinary) resulting from two distinct acts of malpractice (improper suturing and misplacing a hemo-clip). Therefore, she is entitled to a recovery, up to the statutory cap, for each separate injury.
Dissenting - Friedlander, Judge
No, the Act does not permit separate recoveries in this instance. While prior cases allow for multiple recoveries for breaches separated in time and circumstance, a single surgical procedure should be regarded as a single act of medical treatment for purposes of the Act. The legislative intent behind the damages cap was to limit provider liability and prevent multimillion-dollar recoveries from a single 'botched' surgery, regardless of the number of individual errors made. Allowing multiple recoveries for different mistakes within one procedure contravenes the purpose of the Act.
Analysis:
This case clarifies that the unit of analysis for Indiana's medical malpractice damages cap is the 'injury,' not the medical procedure. By focusing on whether distinct acts caused distinct injuries, the court rejected a 'per procedure' or 'per encounter' limitation on liability. This decision expands the potential for larger damage awards in cases involving multiple, discrete errors within a single medical event. It establishes that the temporal proximity of negligent acts is not dispositive; rather, the separability of the breaches and the resulting harms is the key factor for determining the number of applicable statutory caps.
