Hill v. Beghin

• Decision Date: 22 December 1994
• Docket Number: No. 49A02-9312-CV-690,49A02-9312-CV-690
• Parties: James J. HILL, Appellant-Plaintiff, v. John L. BEGHIN, M.D., Appellee-Defendant.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

Page 893

644 N.E.2d 893

James J. HILL, Appellant-Plaintiff, v. John L. BEGHIN, M.D., Appellee-Defendant.

No. 49A02-9312-CV-690.

Court of Appeals of Indiana,

Second District.

Dec. 22, 1994.

Transfer Denied May 16, 1995.

Morris L. Klapper, Laurel R. Klapper, Klapper Isaac & Parish, Indianapolis, for appellant.

Robert J. Shula, Richard S. Pitts, Lowe Gray Steele & Hoffman, Indianapolis, for appellee.

OPINION

FRIEDLANDER, Judge.

James J. Hill appeals the trial court's judgment which determined that Dr. John L. Beghin was not liable, as a matter of law, for allegedly providing negligent opinion testimony to the Worker's Compensation Board regarding the degree of impairment Hill suffered following a work-related injury.

We affirm. ¹

The facts most favorable to the judgment are that Hill injured his back during the course and scope of his employment at Worldmark Corporation. Hill worked as a packer and his job involved lifting bundles of aluminum weighing approximately 100 to 140 pounds and lifting I-beams weighing between thirty and 100 pounds. The job also required him to stand eight to ten hours each work day.

On January 8, 1991, Hill was lifting a beam weighing more than 100 pounds. He experienced immediate lower back pain. Worldmark, through its worker's compensation insurance carrier, ITT Hartford Insurance Group (Hartford), provided Hill with medical attention and temporary total disability payments for a period of time following the injury.

On May 6, 1991, Hartford referred Hill to Beghin, a certified orthopaedic surgeon. Beghin became the treating physician for Hill and prescribed various treatments including stretch and strengthening exercises. This therapy was terminated on August 15, 1991, when Beghin concluded that the back rehabilitation proved ineffective. Three days later, Beghin rendered an opinion indicating that Hill had reached maximum recovery and had a permanent partial impairment of three percent as a result of his injury. Beghin's report also indicated that Hill was "released to return to work [with] no restrictions." Record at 132. Based on Beghin's opinion, Worldmark terminated all worker's compensation benefits to Hill as of August 18, 1991. Hill continued to seek medical treatment and has not returned to work.

On December 23, 1991, Hill filed an "Application for Adjustment of Claim" with the Worker's Compensation Board. The Board accepted Beghin's opinion, and ruled that "Petitioner has failed to prove an entitlement to disability or statutory medical after August 18, 1991." Record at 20. This order was subsequently affirmed by the full Worker's Compensation Board. ²

Hill filed a complaint with the Indiana Department of Insurance on August 12, 1992, alleging medical malpractice against Beghin. Hill maintained that Beghin was negligent in returning him to work without restrictions, thereby causing Hill to sustain substantial economic loss. Beghin moved to dismiss the action on March 9, 1993, and on September 28, 1993, the trial court granted Beghin's motion and entered the following order:

"Comes now the Petitioner-Defendant, John L. Beghin, M.D., by counsel, and having previously filed his Motion for Preliminary Determination of Law and Motion to Dismiss on the bases that the Indiana Department of Insurance lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the Proposed Complaint and that the Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted:

And the court being duly advised in the premises, now grants said Motion.

IT IS, THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Proposed Complaint before the Department of Insurance against John L. Beghin, M.D., is hereby DISMISSED."

Record at 156.

Hill appeals and presents the following restated issues:

1. Did the trial court err in refusing to treat Beghin's motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment?

2. Did the trial court err in dismissing Hill's complaint as a result of Beghin's alleged negligent opinion testimony he presented to the Worker's Compensation Board?

1.

We begin our discussion with the appropriate standard of review that must be employed in this case. This court views motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted with disfavor because such motions undermine the policy of deciding causes of action on their merits. Lincoln National Bank v. Mundinger (1988), Ind.App., 528 N.E.2d 829. We view the pleadings in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and we draw every reasonable inference in favor of that party. Couch v. Hamilton County (1993), Ind.App., 609 N.E.2d 39. We will not affirm a dismissal under Ind.Rules of Procedure, Trial Rule 12(B)(6) unless it is apparent that the facts alleged in the challenged pleading are incapable of supporting relief under any set of circumstances. Id.; Ivey v. Massachusetts Bay Ins. Co. (1991), Ind.App., 569 N.E.2d 692.

While Hill acknowledges the above standard, he argues that the rules governing summary judgment should apply. The record before us reflects that Beghin filed four exhibits in support of his motion to dismiss, and Hill presented several supporting exhibits in his response to that motion. Hill argues that the submission of materials outside the complaint does not entitle Beghin to judgment because there are disputed issues of fact.

The trial court's jurisdiction was invoked in accordance with Ind.Code 16-9.5-10-1, which permits that court to determine on a preliminary basis, and as a matter of law, "any affirmative defense or issue of law or fact that may be preliminarily determined under the Indiana Rules of Procedure...." (Emphasis supplied). Beghin's motion was premised upon both T.R. 12(B)(1) and (6). The T.R. 12(B)(1) motion was based on the theory that the Worker's Compensation Board has exclusive jurisdiction over benefit proceedings. Contrary to Hill's argument, the submission of matters outside the pleadings does not convert a motion under T.R. 12(B)(1) to a motion for summary judgment. See Mid States Aircraft Engines v. Mize Co. (1984), Ind.App., 467 N.E.2d 1242.

When Beghin filed the petition for a preliminary determination of law and to dismiss in accordance with T.R. 12(B)(6), the supporting materials included the proposed complaint, answers to interrogatories, and documents from the Worker's Compensation Board. Hill's responsive documents were in a similar vein. The record reflects that the trial judge did not treat these documents in accordance with summary judgment standards (the existence or non-existence of genuine issues of material fact), inasmuch as he disposed of the motion pursuant to T.R. 12(B).

The arguments of the parties demonstrate that the trial court may have considered the supporting materials in deciding whether Hill's complaint was sufficient. While this is not permissible in determining the propriety of a T.R. 12(B)(6) motion, any error the trial court may have committed in considering documents outside of the pleadings was harmless in light of our disposition of issue two, infra. As explained below, the allegations presented in Hill's complaint do not support a claim under any set of circumstances. See Ivey, supra.

The matters submitted outside the pleadings did not raise genuine issues of material fact pursuant to T.R. 56, and the trial court properly refused to treat Beghin's motion to dismiss as a summary judgment motion.

2.

The trial court properly entered judgment for Beghin when it determined that he was not liable to Hill for allegedly providing negligent opinion testimony to the Worker's Compensation Board regarding the degree of impairment Hill suffered.

In a medical malpractice action based upon negligence, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant owed him a duty, that the defendant breached that duty, and that the plaintiff suffered compensable injuries proximately caused by the defendant's breach of duty. Burke v. Capello (1988), Ind., 520 N.E.2d 439; Miller v. Griesel (1974), 261 Ind. 604, 611, 308 N.E.2d 701, 706. In Johnson v. Bender (1977), 174 Ind.App. 638, 369 N.E.2d 936, this court observed that the proximate cause of an injury is "the cause which sets in motion the chain of circumstances leading up to the injury and has been defined as that cause which in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the result complained of and without which the result would not have occurred. Id., 369 N.E.2d at 939 (emphasis supplied). In the case before us, Hill was bound to demonstrate an unbroken chain of events from the negligence of Beghin to the denial of the worker's compensation benefits. See Rhiver v. Rietman (1970), 148 Ind.App. 266, 265 N.E.2d 245.

In Rhiver, the appellant-plaintiff charged the appellee-physician (Rietman) with negligence in the rendering of a medical opinion and report concerning Rhiver's mental condition. The report had been submitted to a court which was considering a petition for Rhiver's temporary commitment. The trial...