Winona Memorial Hospital, Ltd. Partnership v. Kuester
2000 Ind. App. LEXIS 1712, 737 N.E.2d 824, 2000 WL 1577128 (2000)
Rule of Law:
A claim against a qualified health care provider for the negligent credentialing of a physician, the underlying basis for which is alleged medical malpractice, is an action for malpractice subject to the provisions of the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act, requiring submission to a medical review panel.
Facts:
- Winona Memorial Foundation of Indianapolis (Winona) was engaged in the business of providing hospital care and services.
- Winona was under a duty to reasonably investigate the credentials of potential staff physicians and to inform itself of their physical and mental conditions, past behavior, and performance.
- Winona had a duty to grant staff privileges and retain on its staff only those physicians who were competent, sober, and in reasonably good mental and physical health.
- Sharon Kuester was seriously injured on July 30, 1997, during surgery at Winona Hospital.
- Kuester's injuries were allegedly caused, at least in part, by the actions of W. Michael Crosby, M.D., who was on the staff of Winona Hospital.
- Kuester alleged that Winona was negligent in violating its duties related to credentialing Dr. Crosby, and this negligence proximately caused her injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Sharon Kuester filed a complaint against Winona Hospital, alleging negligent credentialing of a doctor whose malpractice allegedly caused her injury.
- Winona Hospital, as defendant health care provider, filed a motion to dismiss Kuester’s complaint, arguing that the claim was subject to the Medical Malpractice Act and required an opinion from a medical review panel.
- The trial court denied Winona Hospital’s motion to dismiss.
- Winona Hospital, as appellant, filed an interlocutory appeal to the Court of Appeals of Indiana, with Sharon Kuester as 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:
Is a claim against a qualified health care provider for the negligent credentialing of a physician an action for malpractice subject to the provisions of the Medical Malpractice Act, thereby requiring a medical review panel opinion before filing a complaint in court?
Opinions:
Majority - Mathias, Judge
Yes, a claim against a qualified health care provider for the negligent credentialing of a physician is an action for malpractice subject to the provisions of the Medical Malpractice Act. The court first acknowledged that the Medical Malpractice Act 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 Winona is an undisputed health care provider, the Act does not define “professional services,” leading to ambiguity regarding whether physician credentialing falls under its scope. Review of relevant Indiana statutes (I.C. § 16-21-2-5 and § 16-21-2-7) revealed that the credentialing process involves a blend of medical and non-medical personnel and expertise, further indicating the Act's ambiguity on this specific issue. Because the Act was ambiguous, the court proceeded to construe it to give effect to the General Assembly’s intent. Citing precedent from Sue Yee Lee v. Lafayette Home Hospital, Inc., the court emphasized that the General Assembly intended for “all actions the underlying basis for which is alleged medical malpractice are subject to the act,” with the purpose of protecting health care providers and ensuring the availability of professional services. Kuester’s negligent credentialing claim necessarily required proving an underlying act of medical malpractice by Dr. Crosby. The court also noted that the composition of medical review panels, which include health care providers qualified as experts, makes them suitable for evaluating the standard of care in credentialing. The court concluded that credentialing is directly related to the provision of health care and the provider's exercise of professional expertise, skill, or judgment, and is therefore not excluded from the Act. The court thus held that a claim for negligent credentialing is an action for malpractice subject to the Act's requirements, including the medical review panel process.
Analysis:
This case significantly broadens the scope of the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act by explicitly including claims of negligent credentialing within its purview. It means that hospitals, when sued for failing to properly vet their medical staff whose subsequent malpractice harms a patient, are afforded the same protections as individual health care providers under the Act. This ruling solidifies the requirement for plaintiffs to undergo a medical review panel process as a condition precedent to filing suit for negligent credentialing, potentially impacting the timeline and complexity of such litigation. The decision underscores a legislative intent to create a comprehensive framework for addressing claims that are, at their core, rooted in medical negligence, even if the direct act by the hospital appears administrative.
