Wisniewski v. Bennett
1999 WL 756920, 1999 Ind. LEXIS 808, 716 N.E.2d 892 (1999)
Rule of Law:
Access to Indiana's Patient's Compensation Fund for excess medical malpractice liability requires that a qualified health care provider or its authorized insurer, as defined by the Medical Malpractice Act, settle a claim by payment of its policy limits, meaning the entity making the payment must have contributed to the Fund through surcharges and be an authorized insurer under the Act.
Facts:
- From 1986 to 1990, Michael J. Wisniewski was treated by Dr. Kishan Chand at Southeastern Medical Centers for injuries to his leg.
- During this treatment period, Dr. Chand and Southeastern were insured by the Illinois State Medical Insurance Exchange (ISMIE), but neither ISMIE nor its insureds filed proof of financial responsibility or paid the required surcharge to be 'qualified health care providers' under the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act.
- In 1988, Southeastern also had a $100,000 policy from the Physicians Insurance Company of Indiana (PICI), and PICI paid the surcharge, thereby qualifying Southeastern as a health care provider for that single year.
- In 1990, Wisniewski filed a lawsuit against Dr. Chand, Southeastern, and others, alleging medical malpractice.
- A Medical Review Panel issued an opinion finding that Southeastern failed to meet the applicable standard of care due to Dr. Chand's actions as an employee or officer of Southeastern.
- The lawsuit was settled for $112,500.
- Wisniewski executed separate releases for Dr. Chand and Southeastern, which stated they reserved his right to proceed against the Patient’s Compensation Fund.
- ISMIE paid Wisniewski the $112,500 using two checks from Dr. Chand’s policy.
Procedural Posture:
- Michael J. Wisniewski filed a lawsuit in Lake Superior Court against Dr. Kishan Chand, Southeastern Medical Centers, and others, alleging medical malpractice.
- Wisniewski also filed a proposed complaint with the Department of Insurance and initiated Medical Review Panel proceedings as required by the Medical Malpractice Act.
- After the settlement, Wisniewski filed a petition in the Lake Superior Court (trial court) to access the Patient’s Compensation Fund for damages exceeding the settlement amount.
- The Commissioner of the Department of Insurance responded with a motion for summary judgment, arguing Wisniewski failed to satisfy the statutory conditions precedent to petition the Fund.
- The trial court granted the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment.
- Wisniewski appealed the trial court's decision to the Indiana Court of Appeals.
- The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's summary judgment and remanded the case, holding that a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding whether Southeastern had agreed to settle, and if so, whether damages occurred during a period of qualification and met the statutory threshold (Wisniewski v. Bennett, 693 N.E.2d 1341 (Ind.Ct.App.1998)).
- Both the Commissioner (as appellant) and Wisniewski (as appellee) petitioned the Indiana Supreme Court for transfer.
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 settlement of a medical malpractice claim, where an agreement to settle is inferred with a partially qualified provider but payment comes from an unauthorized insurer who has not paid into the Patient's Compensation Fund, permit the patient to access the Fund for excess damages under the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Boehm, Justice
No. A patient cannot access the Patient's Compensation Fund for excess damages if the settlement payment comes from an insurer that is not authorized under the Act and has not contributed to the Fund, even if there was an agreement to settle with a partially qualified health care provider. Justice Boehm explained that the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act explicitly mandates that only qualified health care providers and their authorized insurers are covered by its provisions. To qualify, a provider or its insurer must file proof of financial responsibility with the Insurance Commissioner and pay a required surcharge into the Fund, as outlined in Ind. Code § 34-18-3-2. Access to the Fund for damages exceeding $100,000 is contingent on a 'qualified provider or its insurer' settling its liability 'by payment' of its policy limits (Ind. Code § 34-18-15-3). The court determined that ISMIE was not an 'insurer' as defined by the Act because it lacked authorization to write malpractice insurance in Indiana, as confirmed by the Commissioner’s evidence. Therefore, ISMIE could not be considered an insurer of a qualified provider for the purposes of the Act. Furthermore, the court emphasized that the fundamental principle of the Fund is that 'those providers who get the benefit of the Act also pay for the excess coverage provided by the Fund.' Since ISMIE had made no contributions to the Fund on Southeastern’s behalf, allowing its payment to trigger Fund access would undermine the Fund's financial stability and be unjust to contributing providers. The Fund is explicitly not intended to serve as a 'free excess carrier' for insurers who have not contributed. While the Court of Appeals had identified a material issue of fact regarding whether Southeastern had agreed to settle (citing Smith v. Pancner, 679 N.E.2d 893), the Supreme Court ruled that even if such an agreement existed, the source of the payment itself was disqualifying. Although Southeastern was qualified for 1988 through PICI, the settlement payment originated from ISMIE, which did not meet the Act's definition of an authorized insurer that had paid into the Fund. For a payment to qualify, it must come from the provider's insurer as defined by the Act, specifically one that facilitated the provider's qualification and contributed to the Fund.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the strict financial requirements and statutory purpose of Indiana's Patient's Compensation Fund. It clarifies that medical malpractice claimants must demonstrate rigorous compliance with the Medical Malpractice Act's qualification and payment provisions to access the Fund, effectively preventing entities that have not contributed to the system from shifting excess liability onto it. The ruling serves as a critical reminder to both healthcare providers and insurers about the necessity of proper qualification, authorization, and surcharge payments under the Act, thereby influencing how future medical malpractice claims are settled and determining who bears the ultimate financial responsibility. Future litigation involving the Fund will likely involve rigorous examination of the source of settlement payments.
