Gardner v. Physician
| Docket Number | 23A-CT-345 |
| Decision Date | 09 November 2023 |
| Parties | Laurie Gardner, Appellant-Plaintiff, v. Anonymous Physician, Appellee-Defendant |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Indiana |
1
Laurie Gardner, Appellant-Plaintiff,
v.
Anonymous Physician, Appellee-Defendant
No. 23A-CT-345
Court of Appeals of Indiana
November 9, 2023
Appeal from the Lake Superior Court The Honorable Calvin Delee Hawkins, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 45D02-2004-CT-417
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT Colby A. Barkes Jeffrey S. Wrage Valparaiso, Indiana
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE Michael A. Sarafin Crown Point, Indiana
OPINION
Altice, Chief Judge.
Case Summary
[¶1] Laurie Gardner, a nurse at St. Mary Medical Center, Inc. (the Hospital), filed a proposed complaint against Anonymous Physician for medical malpractice. Anonymous Physician sought dismissal, arguing that because he and Gardner
were in the same employ and she sustained a workplace injury, her exclusive remedy was under the Worker's Compensation Act (WCA). The trial court dismissed the medical malpractice action based on Ind. Trial Rule 12(B)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
[¶2] On appeal, Gardner argues that physicians are third parties under the WCA and thus are not shielded from claims of medical negligence brought by an employee of the same company. We agree that the exclusivity provision of the WCA does not immunize a physician from claims for medical negligence arising from a doctor-patient relationship with the injured party, who is in the same employ as the physician. The exclusivity provision, however, does apply to claims brought against a physician that are unrelated to the physician's medical treatment of a fellow employee.
[¶3] Reading the proposed complaint in a light most favorable to Gardner, we conclude that some of her allegations of malpractice appear to have arisen out of a doctor-patient relationship between her and Anonymous Physician and not simply from their common employment at the Hospital. While Gardner may not proceed against Anonymous Physician based on his treatment of another patient or his actions as a medical director at the Hospital, she may pursue a medical malpractice action related to any treatment she received from Anonymous Physician for her workplace injury. Accordingly, the trial court erred in dismissing the proposed complaint.
[¶4] We reverse and remand.
Facts &Procedural History
[¶5] On September 1, 2016, Gardner was exposed to crusted (Norwegian) scabies in the course and scope of her employment as a nurse at the Hospital. She contracted scabies from contact with a patient and then unknowingly exposed her family, resulting in family members contracting the skin infection.
[¶6] Gardner filed a worker's compensation claim against the Hospital in March 2018, which was settled by a compromise agreement in October 2019. In the meantime, on May 23, 2018, she filed a proposed complaint against Anonymous Physician with the Indiana Department of Insurance (the DOI). Gardner asserted the following negligence allegations:
7. [Anonymous Physician] failed to protect Plaintiff from exposure to and failed to diagnose the scabies which led to a delay in appropriate treatment. Said failure to diagnose caused Plaintiff to unknowingly expose her family to scabies which resulted in her family members also contracting scabies
8. [Anonymous Physician] negligently directed Plaintiff's care by failing to provide appropriate and timely treatment and for his failure to refer Plaintiff to medical care providers specializing in the treatment of the scabies condition which Plaintiff contracted at her place of employment
Appendix at 27.
[¶7] On September 15, 2022, while the matter still pended before the DOI, Anonymous Physician sought a preliminary determination of law by the trial court that the proposed complaint should be dismissed pursuant to T.R.
12(B)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Anonymous Physician argued that dismissal was warranted because Gardner "exhausted her sole remedy, a worker's compensation claim, upon a workplace accident and subsequent medical care which occurred when she and [Anonymous Physician] were employed by subsidiaries of the same corporate parent(s)." Appendix at 13.
[¶8] Among the limited exhibits provided by Anonymous Physician in support of his motion to dismiss was the affidavit of Nancy Moser, Vice President for Corporate Compliance and Quality/Risk Management for Community Healthcare System, which includes, among others, Community Foundation of Northwest Indiana, Inc. (CFNI), the Hospital, St. Catherine Hospital, Inc. (SCH), Munster Medical Research Foundation, Inc. (MMRF), and Community Care Network, Inc (CCNI). The corporate organizational structure of these entities is summarized by the following flow chart:
(Image Omitted)
According to Moser, Anonymous Physician was at all relevant times an employee of CCNI[1] and contracted as the Medical Director of the Hospital's Infection Control and Wound Care Department.
[¶9] Following briefing and oral argument on the T.R. 12(B)(1) motion, the trial court issued an order on January 30, 2023, dismissing Gardner's proposed complaint. Gardner now appeals.
Discussion &Decision
[¶10] Where a party defends against a negligence claim based on the exclusivity provision of the WCA, the defense is properly advanced through a T.R. 12(B)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See GKN Co. v. Magness, 744 N.E.2d 397, 401 (Ind. 2001). "In ruling on a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the trial court may consider not only the complaint and motion but also any affidavits or evidence submitted in support." Id. Ultimately, the opponent of subject matter jurisdiction has the burden of proving the lack of jurisdiction. Curry v. D.A.L.L. Anointed, Inc., 966 N.E.2d 91, 95 (Ind.Ct.App. 2012), trans. denied.
[¶11] Where jurisdictional facts are not in dispute or where they are disputed but the trial court ruled on a paper record without conducting an evidentiary hearing, we afford no deference to the trial court on appeal. GKN Co., 744 N.E.2d at 401.
In other words, our review is de novo in these circumstances because we are in as good a position as the trial court to determine the existence of subject matter jurisdiction, and we will affirm on any legal theory the evidence of record supports. Id.
[¶12] The WCA provides compensation to employees for accidental injuries that arise out of, and in the course of, employment, and its exclusive remedies provision -Ind. Code § 22-3-2-6 - precludes a trial court from hearing a common law action brought by the employee for the same injuries. "It is the employeremployee relationship that defines the parameters of the immunity granted by the WCA's exclusive remedy provision." Brenner v. All Steel Carports, Inc., 122 N.E.3d 872, 877 (Ind.Ct.App. 2019) (citing Ross v. Schubert, 388 N.E.2d 623, 627 (Inc. Ct. App. 1979), trans. denied). Thus, the WCA does not reach beyond the employment relationship to benefit a third party. Id.
[¶13] I.C. § 22-3-2-13 specifically addresses the right of an injured employee to pursue remedies in tort against a third party (as well as an employer's rights to subrogation) and provides in relevant part:
Whenever an injury or death, for which compensation is payable under chapters 2 through 6 of this article shall have been sustained under circumstances creating in some other person than the employer and not in the same employ a legal liability to pay damages in respect thereto, the injured employee, or the injured employee's dependents, in case of death, may commence legal proceedings against the other person to recover damages notwithstanding the employer's or the employer's compensation insurance carrier's payment of or liability to pay compensation under chapters 2 through 6 of this article.
I.C. § 22-3-2-13(a) (emphasis supplied). "With this provision the WCA creates an exception to the exclusive remedy provision for actions to be brought against third parties, namely someone other than the employer or a fellow employee, in which legal liability was created by a WCA-compensable...
To continue reading
Request your trial