Gierek v. Anonymous Expands Scope of Indiana Medical Malpractice Act

In Gierek v. Anonymous 1, the Indiana Supreme Court addressed whether claims based on exposure to unsterilized surgical instruments fell under the state’s Medical Malpractice Act (MMA). Linda and Stephen Gierek, along with other similarly situated patients, brought a class-action lawsuit against multiple anonymous healthcare providers after receiving letters from a hospital notifying them of potential exposure to infectious diseases. The exposure allegedly resulted from a technician’s failure to fully sterilize surgical instruments. The plaintiffs asserted claims of negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligence, and medical malpractice.

Class Certification and Statutory Interpretation

After receiving the notification letters, Linda Gierek filed both a proposed complaint with the Indiana Department of Insurance and a lawsuit in Elkhart Superior Court. The complaint sought class certification for affected patients and their spouses. Another plaintiff, Cheyanne Bennett, filed a similar action, and both cases were consolidated.

The Indiana Patient's Compensation Fund intervened, arguing that the claims sounded in ordinary negligence and thus fell outside the MMA. The hospital defendants contended otherwise, claiming the MMA did apply. The trial court sided with the hospital, ruling that the MMA applied. However, it denied class certification, reasoning that the court lacked jurisdiction to address certification while the complaint was pending before a medical review panel.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the MMA’s applicability but reversed on the jurisdiction issue, holding that the trial court could preliminarily address class certification. The Indiana Supreme Court accepted transfer and issued its own ruling.

MMA Coverage and Emotional Distress

The Supreme Court concluded that the MMA applied to all claims of "malpractice" brought by a "patient" against a "health care provider," regardless of whether the injury involved physical harm or emotional distress. The justices emphasized that the statutory definitions in the MMA were broad enough to encompass the plaintiffs' claims.

The court rejected the argument that only claims involving bodily injury or death could proceed under the MMA. It noted that the statutory language did not restrict the term "malpractice" in such a way and highlighted the legislative history and prior case law supporting a broader interpretation. The court explained that the nature of the plaintiffs' claims—exposure to improperly sterilized surgical instruments—involved the provision of health care services and thus fell within the scope of the MMA.

The court also addressed whether the plaintiffs' emotional-distress claims alleged a "bodily injury" as required by earlier interpretations of the statute. It concluded that under Indiana's modified-impact rule, the alleged physical contact from contaminated surgical tools could constitute a bodily injury. Consequently, even if bodily injury were a statutory requirement, the plaintiffs' allegations met that threshold.

Jurisdiction to Determine Class Certification

The second issue the Court considered was whether the trial court had jurisdiction to rule on class certification while the complaint was under review by a medical panel. The Supreme Court held that it did. The court overruled parts of its earlier precedent, specifically Griffith v. Jones, which narrowly interpreted the scope of preliminary determinations under the MMA.

The court explained that class certification is a procedural matter governed by Indiana Trial Rules and does not intrude upon the review panel's reserved authority to evaluate medical standards of care or causation. The justices emphasized that allowing preliminary determinations like class certification serves the MMA’s goals of judicial efficiency and cost mitigation.

The ruling further clarified that class certification does not dictate the merits of a case or interfere with the review panel's assessment. Instead, it allows the court to manage litigation more efficiently, particularly in cases involving a large number of potential claimants exposed to a common course of conduct.

Next Steps in the Litigation

Based on its conclusions, the Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s determination that the MMA applied to the plaintiffs’ claims. However, it reversed the denial of class certification and remanded the case for the trial court to consider whether class certification was appropriate under Indiana Trial Rule 23.

Medical Malpractice Representation

If you have concerns related to improper medical treatment, exposure to unsafe medical practices, or emotional distress caused by healthcare procedures, Whitcomb, Selinsky, PC offers assistance in navigating Indiana’s medical malpractice process and understanding your rights under the law.