Cutchin v. Ind. Dep't of Ins.
| Decision Date | 09 March 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 3:18-cv-00028-TWP-MPB |
| Parties | Jeffrey B. CUTCHIN, Personal Representative of the Estates of Claudine D. Cutchin and Adelaide E. Cutchin, Plaintiff, v. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE, Stephen W. Robertson, Intervenor Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Indiana |
Jean Marie Blanton, Patrick A. Shoulders, Ziemer Stayman Weitzel & Shoulders LLP, Evansville, IN, for Plaintiff.
ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
This matter is before the Court on Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Intervenor Defendant Stephen W. Robertson, Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Insurance, Administrator of the Indiana Patient's Compensation Fund ("PCF") filed a summary judgment motion on August 23, 2019. (Filing No. 73). That same date, Plaintiff Jeffrey B. Cutchin ("Cutchin") filed a cross-motion. (Filing No. 76). Cutchin initiated this action against Anonymous Healthcare Provider 1 and Anonymous Healthcare Provider 2, following the tragic deaths of his wife and daughter, alleging that their medical care and treatment fell below the standard of care, which led to the wrongful deaths of his wife and daughter. Cutchin amended his Complaint to add a request for declaratory judgment, thereafter, the PCF intervened in the case to protect its interests implicated by the Amended Complaint. Cutchin reached an agreement to settle his claims with Anonymous Healthcare Providers 1 and 2, and the cross-motions for summary judgment followed. For the reasons explained below, the Court grants the PCF's Motion and denies Cutchin's Motion.
The Indiana Medical Malpractice Act, Indiana Code § 34-18 et seq. , provides the statutory framework for medical negligence claims in the state of Indiana. As part of this statutory framework, the Indiana General Assembly created the Patient's Compensation Fund ("PFC"), which allows a claimant to seek payment from the fund for an amount in excess of a health care provider's liability limits on medical malpractice claims. See Ind. Code §§ 34-18-6; 34-18-14; 34-18-15; and generally Ind. Code § 34-18 et seq. The PCF is administered by the Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Insurance.
Anonymous Healthcare Provider 1 ("Provider 1") practices medicine at Anonymous Healthcare Provider 2 ("Provider 2"), which is a medical clinic in Ft. Branch, Indiana. Provider 1 is a "qualified provider" subject to and governed by the provisions of the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act. Provider 1 provided medical care to Sylvia Watson ("Watson") beginning in May 2000 (Filing No. 78-1 at 3). In the course of treating Watson for a variety of medical conditions, Provider 1 prescribed numerous medications for Watson, and in early 2017, Watson was taking at least eight different medications, including an opioid, prescribed by Provider 1 (Filing No. 82-1 at 9).
On February 2, 2017, Watson and her granddaughter, Brandy Mayer ("Mayer"), left Taylor's Garage in Owensville, Indiana, to travel to Princeton, Indiana. Before leaving Taylor's Garage, Mayer watched Watson take out a prescription bottle and take two pills. Watson then drove her vehicle while Mayer was in the passenger seat. There is a stoplight at the intersection of State Road 65 and State Road 64, and as Watson and Mayer approached the intersection, the traffic light was red. However, Watson was unable to physically lift her foot off the gas pedal to brake for the red light. As a result, Watson crashed her vehicle into another vehicle driven by Claudine Cutchin (Cutchin's wife) with Adelaide Cutchin (Cutchin's daughter) as a passenger. Watson, Claudine Cutchin, and Adelaide Cutchin all died as a result of the accident. A blood test administered to Watson after the accident revealed the presence of opiates in her system (Filing No. 74-1 at 2–3; Filing No. 80-3 at 4–8).
On January 25, 2018, Cutchin simultaneously filed a proposed complaint with the Indiana Department of Insurance and his Complaint in this Court, containing parallel allegations and seeking damages against Provider 1 and Provider 2 for the wrongful deaths of his wife and daughter (Filing No. 80-5 at 3–8). In his Complaint, Cutchin alleged, "The medical care and treatment rendered to Watson by [Provider 1 and Provider 2] was substandard, breached applicable standards of care, and was careless and negligent proximately causing and contributing to the cause of the wrongful deaths of Claudine and Adelaide." (Filing No. 1 at 3.)
Cutchin further alleged, "Defendants' treatment of Watson fell below the applicable standard of care and proximately caused the wrongful death of Claudine and Adelaide" when Provider 1 and Provider 2, among other things, "failed to warn Watson about driving a motor vehicle under the influence of the drugs and various combinations of drugs which he/they prescribed". Id. at 3, 5. "Watson had fallen at least twice due to unknown causes within eighteen (18) months of the fatal accident, yet Defendants failed to adjust Watson's medication or warn her concerning the operation of motor vehicles." Id. at 4.
As a qualified health care provider under the Medical Malpractice Act, Provider 1 was insured by Medical Protective Insurance as well as the PCF. Watson was Provider 1's longtime patient from 2000 to 2017, and Provider 1 provided her medical services, treatment, and healthcare in that physician-patient relationship. Provider 1 never provided any medical services, treatment, or healthcare to Cutchin, Claudine Cutchin, or Adelaide Cutchin. Provider 1 never established a physician-patient relationship with Cutchin, Claudine Cutchin, or Adelaide Cutchin. Cutchin, Claudine Cutchin, and Adelaide Cutchin were never Provider 1's patients, and they never received medical services from Provider 1 or his medical practice (Provider 2) (Filing No. 74-3 at 2–3).
Approximately nine months after filing his original Complaint, Cutchin filed an Amended Complaint, which added a request for a declaratory judgment concerning the applicability of the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act to the factual allegations of his Complaint. (Filing No. 26 at 6-7). Three months later, the PCF filed a Motion to Intervene as a defendant in this matter to protect its interest in administering the fund. PCF explained that if the Court were to determine that the Medical Malpractice Act applies, then the PCF possibly could be affected (Filing No. 35). PCF's position in the Motion to Intervene is that the Medical Malpractice Act does not apply because, "the case facts do not provide coverage under the Act," and the PCF should not be accessible for any excess damages. Id. at 10.
The Magistrate Judge scheduled a settlement conference for March 13, 2019, and the PCF filed a motion to be excused from participating in the settlement conference asserting that "this matter should not be determined under the Medical Malpractice Act," and "this case does not fall within the Act." (Filing No. 38 at 1–2.) The Magistrate Judge denied the PCF's request to be excused from the settlement conference (Filing No. 42).
On March 13, 2019, the settlement conference was held with Cutchin, Provider 1, Provider 2, a representative of Provider 1 and 2's malpractice insurer, and the PCF. A settlement was reached between Cutchin and Providers 1 and 2 for $250,000.00, the maximum amount recoverable against the doctor under the Medical Malpractice Act (Filing No. 43; Filing No. 80-7). All parties to the case, including the PCF, executed a "Memorandum of Agreement," which acknowledged the settlement, reflected the amount to be paid by Providers 1 and 2, called for termination of the medical review panel proceedings as to Providers 1 and 2, and noted Cutchin's reservation of the right to pursue claims against the PCF (Filing No. 80-7).
In accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement, Cutchin dismissed Providers 1 and 2 from this litigation, accepted the $250,000.00 payment from Providers 1 and 2, and executed a "Settlement and Release Agreement". The PCF did not contribute financially to the settlement and was not a party to the formal settlement documents executed by the settling parties. However, the settlement agreement between Cutchin and Providers 1 and 2 explicitly reserved Cutchin's right to proceed against the PCF (Filing No. 86-1 at 3–4, 6–7).
On April 11, 2019, Cutchin filed a Stipulation of Dismissal of Providers 1 and 2 and "specifically reserve[ed] Plaintiff's claims and rights herein to proceed against the Defendant Indiana Patient's Compensation Fund." (Filing No. 45 at 1.) On the same day, Cutchin filed a Petition for Payment of Damages from the PCF (Filing No. 46). On April 15, 2019, the PCF represented to the Court that it "does not object to dismissal of Anonymous Healthcare Providers 1 and 2 with prejudice." (Filing No. 47 at 2.) However, the PCF objected to the stipulated dismissal to explain that the "Plaintiff's ability to proceed against the PCF under the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act I.C. § 34-18-1-1 et. seq. (the ‘Act’) is a central dispute in this case," and "[t]he PCF has consistently taken the position that because of the nature of Plaintiff's claims, the Plaintiff has no cognizable legal right to damages from the PCF because the underlying acts are not within the purview of the Act." Id. at 1–2.
On June 27, 2019, Cutchin and the PCF submitted their Joint Proposed Preliminary Case Management Plan Schedule, which stated that the parties agreed they would file summary judgment motions regarding whether the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act applies to the facts of this case (Filing No. 66). Then on August 23, 2019, the parties filed their Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment.
The purpose of summary judgment is to "pierce the pleadings and to assess the proof in order to see whether there is a genuine need for trial." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cutchin v. Robertson, 20-1437
...not fall within the scope of the Act. Cutchin was therefore barred from seeking excess damages from the Fund. Cutchin v. Ind. Dep't of Ins. , 446 F. Supp. 3d 413 (S.D. Ind. 2020).II.Cutchin has presented two questions for review: (1) Whether Indiana's Medical Malpractice Act prohibits the P......
- Davis v. Saul
-
Cutchin v. Beard
... ... judgment in favor of the commissioner. Cutchin v. Ind ... Dep't of Ins., 446 F.Supp.3d 413 (S.D. Ind. 2020) ... On ... ...