Weldon v. Universal Reagents, Inc.
1999 WL 280952, 714 NE2d 1104 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a claim to fall under the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act, a physician-patient relationship must exist where health care is provided to promote the patient's own health. An individual paid to participate in a blood donor program for the commercial benefit of the program and third parties is not a "patient" receiving "health care" under the Act.
Facts:
- In August 1995, Marilyn S. Weldon responded to an advertisement by Universal Reagents, Inc. (URI) seeking paid participants for its Red Blood Cell Donor Program.
- URI is a corporation that produces a medical product, RhoGam, by immunizing donors with antigens to increase Rho(D) antibodies in their blood and then harvesting their plasma.
- Weldon signed consent forms and participated in the program, which involved receiving antigen injections and having her plasma extracted through plasmapheresis.
- During the program, Weldon became ill, developed a large hematoma at the injection site, and expressed a desire to withdraw.
- Weldon alleged that a URI Vice President, Donald Foster, informed her that she could only withdraw from the program if she paid URI $1,000.
- Weldon's last participation in the program was in November 1995.
Procedural Posture:
- URI filed a complaint against Weldon in trial court for breach of contract, malicious prosecution, and abuse of process.
- Weldon filed a counterclaim against URI alleging battery and emotional distress.
- Nineteen months after the counterclaim was filed, URI moved for summary judgment, arguing the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because Weldon's claim constituted medical malpractice and she had not first filed a proposed complaint with a medical review panel as required by the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act.
- The trial court treated the motion as a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and granted it, finding that URI was a health care provider, Weldon was a patient, and the court lacked jurisdiction.
- Weldon (Appellant) appealed the trial court's dismissal of her counterclaim to the Court of Appeals of Indiana.
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 person who is paid to participate in a red blood cell donor program, where they are injected with antigens to produce antibodies for a commercial product, qualify as a "patient" receiving "health care" under Indiana's Medical Malpractice Act, thereby requiring their claims against the program to first be submitted to a medical review panel?
Opinions:
Majority - Ratliff, Senior Judge
No, a paid participant in a commercial blood donor program is not a "patient" receiving "health care" for the purposes of the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act. The court held that the Act's procedural requirements only apply when a physician-patient relationship exists. Here, Weldon did not seek medical treatment from URI for any health condition. Instead, she entered a commercial arrangement, akin to a vendor-vendee relationship, to participate in a program for compensation. The procedures performed on Weldon were not for her therapeutic benefit but for the creation of a commercial product to help third parties (Rh negative pregnant women). Citing persuasive authority from other jurisdictions and applying a strict construction to the Act because it is in derogation of common law, the court concluded that the absence of a physician-patient relationship and the lack of any intent to provide care for Weldon's own health places her claims outside the purview of the Medical Malpractice Act.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act by narrowing the definitions of "patient" and "health care." It establishes that the Act's procedural prerequisites do not apply to every interaction with an entity defined as a "health care provider." The ruling preserves direct access to the courts for individuals harmed in commercial or research settings, such as paid medical studies or plasma donation programs. By focusing on the therapeutic nature of the relationship, the court prevents companies from using the Act as a shield against common law tort claims, like battery, when their relationship with an individual is commercial rather than for the promotion of that individual's health.
