Wallen v. Hossler
130 N.E.3d 138 (2019)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Indiana's Medical Malpractice Act, the statutory phrase 'agreed to settle' requires a mutual agreement between the parties, meaning a claimant cannot be compelled to accept a healthcare provider's unilateral settlement offer. Furthermore, a single negligent act, such as misinterpreting one medical scan, constitutes a single act of malpractice for the purposes of statutory damage caps, even if it results in both a misdiagnosis and a failure to diagnose.
Facts:
- Dr. Hossler provided medical care to Cathy Wallen, which included interpreting a CT scan of her abdomen.
- Dr. Hossler's interpretation of the CT scan allegedly resulted in a misdiagnosis of gallstones and a failure to diagnose internal bleeding.
- Cathy Wallen subsequently died.
- In response to a malpractice claim brought by Wallen, Cathy's husband, Dr. Hossler offered to settle for his insurance policy limit of $250,000.
- Dr. Hossler's settlement offer was accompanied by thirteen conditions.
- Wallen found the conditions unacceptable and did not accept Dr. Hossler's offer.
Procedural Posture:
- Wallen filed a proposed complaint for medical malpractice against Dr. Hossler.
- In the trial court, Dr. Hossler filed a 'Motion to Enforce Indiana Medical Malpractice Act,' seeking to compel Wallen to accept his policy-limit settlement offer.
- The trial court granted Dr. Hossler's motion, ruling that his offer triggered the statutory process and that only one statutory damage cap applied to the claim.
- Wallen, as appellant, filed an interlocutory appeal of the trial court's order to the Indiana Court of Appeals, with Dr. Hossler 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:
First, does the phrase 'agreed to settle' in Indiana's Medical Malpractice Act refer to a unilateral settlement offer, thereby compelling a claimant to accept it, or does it require a mutual agreement? Second, does a single negligent act, such as misinterpreting a CT scan, constitute multiple distinct acts of malpractice if it results in both a misdiagnosis and a failure to diagnose?
Opinions:
Majority - Najam, J.
No, to both questions. First, the statutory phrase 'agreed to settle' unambiguously requires a mutual, voluntary agreement between parties, not a unilateral offer that compels acceptance. The legislature chose the word 'agreed,' not 'offered,' and because the Act derogates common law, it must be strictly construed. A settlement cannot be compelled, particularly when, as here, the offer is encumbered with unacceptable conditions. Second, a single negligent act does not become multiple acts of malpractice simply because it is described in different ways. Here, both the misdiagnosis and the failure to diagnose arose from the single, indivisible act of misinterpreting the CT scan at one moment in time. This differs from precedents involving distinct negligent acts occurring at different times or affecting different body systems, and therefore constitutes a single act of malpractice subject to one statutory cap.
Concurring - Baker, J.
No, to both questions, but with different reasoning on the second issue. The majority is correct that a settlement cannot be compelled; the plain language requires a mutual agreement. Regarding the second issue, I believe Dr. Hossler committed two distinct acts of malpractice—a misdiagnosis and a failure to diagnose. However, I concur in the result that only one statutory cap applies because both alleged acts resulted in a single, indivisible injury: Cathy's death. One injury permits only one recovery.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle of voluntary settlement within Indiana's medical malpractice statutory scheme, preventing providers from unilaterally forcing claimants to accept policy-limit offers and proceed against the Patient's Compensation Fund. It protects a claimant's leverage and right to a trial if a settlement offer contains unfavorable terms. The court's 'single act' analysis also provides important guidance, discouraging attempts to re-characterize a single instance of negligence as multiple claims to stack statutory damage caps. This holding clarifies the boundary between a single error with multiple consequences and truly distinct acts of malpractice.
