ST. MARY MEDICAL CENTER v. Bakewell
938 N.E.2d 820, 2010 Ind. App. LEXIS 2390, 2010 WL 5123718 (2010)
Rule of Law:
A claim against a healthcare provider alleging negligent maintenance of its premises, such as failing to install handrails or mats, constitutes a general premises liability claim and not medical malpractice under the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act, even if the claimant also pursued it as medical malpractice.
Facts:
- On or about August 31, 2000, Marsha Bakewell fell while showering in her semi-private room at St. Mary Medical Center.
- Bakewell sustained injuries as a result of her fall.
- Bakewell's complaint alleged that St. Mary negligently maintained the premises by failing to install appropriate handrails and mats.
- Bakewell also alleged St. Mary failed to provide any warning to her of the dangerous and hazardous nature of the shower area, which it knew or should have known was dangerous.
Procedural Posture:
- On March 8, 2002, Marsha Bakewell sued St. Mary Medical Center for negligence in Lake County trial court.
- On May 17, 2002, Bakewell filed a proposed medical malpractice complaint against St. Mary with the Indiana Department of Insurance.
- On June 19, 2008, a Medical Review Panel concluded that the evidence did not support St. Mary failing to meet the applicable standard of care as charged in the medical malpractice complaint.
- On February 5, 2009, St. Mary moved for summary judgment in the Lake County trial court.
- On November 9, 2009, the trial court granted St. Mary's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the case.
- On December 10, 2009, Bakewell filed a motion to correct error with the trial court, arguing that summary judgment should only have been granted on the medical malpractice claim, leaving the general premises liability claim intact.
- On March 16, 2010, the trial court granted Bakewell's motion to correct error, revising its earlier entry to deny summary judgment to St. Mary on the general premises liability claim.
- St. Mary Medical Center, as Appellant, appealed the trial court's grant of Bakewell's motion to correct error to the Indiana Court of Appeals.
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 against a hospital for injuries sustained due to negligent maintenance of the premises, specifically the failure to install appropriate handrails and mats or provide warnings, fall under the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act, thereby preventing it from proceeding as a general premises liability claim?
Opinions:
Majority - Bradford, Judge
No, a patient's claim against a hospital for injuries sustained due to negligent maintenance of the premises, such as failing to install handrails and mats or provide warnings, does not fall under the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act and may proceed as a general premises liability claim. The court reasoned that the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act ('MMA') defines 'malpractice' as a tort or breach of contract based on 'health care or professional services' provided by a health care provider to a patient. While claims alleging a healthcare provider's negligent failure to provide appropriate care to a patient properly fall under the MMA, allegations that are 'clearly and unambiguously a premises liability claim' are not subject to the Act, even if lodged against a health care provider. Bakewell's claim specifically alleged St. Mary's negligent maintenance of its facility—failing to install handrails and mats and failure to warn of hazards—rather than a negligent failure to provide appropriate medical care. Citing Harts v. Caylor-Nickel Hosp., Inc., the court distinguished this type of claim from medical malpractice, concluding that it concerned facility safety rather than diagnosis and treatment. Therefore, Bakewell's claim was not properly subject to the MMA and could proceed under a premises liability theory. Justices Kirsch and Crone concurred.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the critical distinction between claims falling under the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act (MMA) and general premises liability claims, even when both are brought against a healthcare provider. It emphasizes that the nature of the alleged negligence—whether it pertains to 'health care or professional services' versus the negligent maintenance of physical premises—is determinative. This ruling provides important guidance for plaintiffs in classifying their claims, potentially allowing some to bypass the MMA's stringent procedural requirements, such as review by a medical review panel, if the alleged injury stems from facility safety rather than medical care. For hospitals, it means maintaining safe premises is a distinct legal duty separate from their medical professional obligations.
