Thomas v. Deitsch
2001 WL 221705, 2001 Ind. App. LEXIS 365, 743 NE2d 1218 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A claim against a healthcare provider falls under the Medical Malpractice Act only if the alleged injury arises from conduct that is curative or salutary in nature and involves the provider's exercise of professional expertise, skill, or judgment. Conduct concerning a patient's condition that is observable by a layperson without medical expertise does not constitute medical malpractice.
Facts:
- Louis Thomas was a regular patient of Dr. Howard Deitsch and had a follow-up appointment scheduled for December 2, 1997.
- On the day of the appointment, Thomas consumed his regularly prescribed medications, half of a tranquilizer pill, multiple doses of cough medication containing alcohol and codeine, and some wine.
- Thomas drove himself to Dr. Deitsch's office for the appointment.
- While Thomas was in the office, both Dr. Deitsch and his nurse observed that Thomas had an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and an unsteady gait, concluding he was intoxicated.
- Dr. Deitsch instructed his nurse to telephone the police to notify them of Thomas's condition and the fact that he would be driving home.
- After leaving the doctor's office, Thomas was arrested for operating a vehicle while intoxicated and subsequently pleaded guilty to the charge.
Procedural Posture:
- Louis Thomas filed a proposed medical malpractice claim against Dr. Howard Deitsch with the Indiana Department of Insurance.
- Deitsch filed a Motion for Preliminary Determination of Law, seeking summary judgment, in the trial court.
- The trial court held a hearing and granted summary judgment in favor of Deitsch.
- Thomas, as appellant, appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the Indiana Court of Appeals, with Deitsch 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 a physician's act of reporting an obviously intoxicated patient to the police, and that patient's subsequent arrest, constitute an injury arising from medical malpractice under the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Mathias, Judge
No. A physician's actions regarding a patient's obvious intoxication do not fall under the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act because the resulting 'injury'—the arrest—does not arise from the provision of professional health care services. The court reasoned that 'malpractice' is limited to conduct that is 'curative or salutary in nature' and requires the exercise of professional medical skill or judgment. Thomas's intoxication was easily observable without the need for medical expertise. Therefore, his alleged injury was unrelated to the promotion of his health or the doctor's exercise of professional judgment, meaning the claim is not controlled by the Medical Malpractice Act and summary judgment for the doctor was appropriate.
Concurring - Robb, Judge
No. The concurring opinion agrees that the claim does not sound in medical malpractice because it does not arise from the doctor's rendition of health care or professional judgment. However, it writes separately to argue that the statute of limitations for an ordinary negligence claim should be tolled (paused) from the time the plaintiff files a 'borderline' claim with the Department of Insurance. This procedural protection would prevent a plaintiff who cautiously files under the Medical Malpractice Act from losing the right to later file a regular negligence lawsuit if the claim is determined not to be malpractice.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the boundary between medical malpractice and ordinary negligence within the context of the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act. It establishes that the Act's procedural requirements do not apply to a physician's conduct unless it involves the exercise of professional medical skill that a layperson would not possess. The ruling narrows the scope of what constitutes 'malpractice,' forcing potential plaintiffs to carefully distinguish whether their injury arose from a failure in professional medical services or from a general duty of care. The concurrence highlights a critical procedural trap, suggesting that the statute of limitations for a common law claim should be tolled to protect plaintiffs who file borderline claims with the wrong administrative body.
