Christie Farrell Lee & Bell
  • About
    • Our Blog
    • Indiana Injury Case Co-Counsel
    • Firm News
    • Video Center
    • Giving Back
  • Practice Areas
    • Personal Injury
    • Truck Accidents
    • Birth Injury
    • Car Accidents
    • Catastrophic Injury
    • Dog Bites
    • Medical Malpractice
    • Motorcycle Accidents
    • Premises Liability
    • Product Liability
    • Traumatic Brain Injuries
    • Wrongful Death
  • Areas Served
    • Indianapolis
    • Fort Wayne
    • Evansville
    • South Bend
    • Bloomington
    • Gary
    • Lafayette
    • Muncie
    • Terre Haute
    • Lawrenceburg
    • Kokomo
    • Richmond
    • Crown Point
    • Carmel
  • Reviews
  • Attorneys
  • Results
  • Contact Us
Call Us Today! CTA Icon 317-488-5500

Blog Derivative Emotional Distress Claim Not Allowed Under Med Mal Act

Derivative Emotional Distress Claim Not Allowed Under Med Mal Act

December 08, 2010
By Christie Farrell Lee & Bell
YouTubeLinkedInFacebookGoogle BusinessYelp
Prev Post Next Post

The Indiana Supreme Court has ruled that a father may not bring a derivative claim for emotional distress under the Medical Malpractice Act because such a claim is not allowable under the Adult Wrongful Death Statute.

Gary Patrick sued, individually and as representative of his son’s estate, under the Adult Wrongful Death Statute for his son Christopher’s death after a hospital negligently discharged Christopher following an accident despite his complaints of pain.  Christopher later died of a ruptured colon as a result of the accident.  Mr. Patrick also brought a derivative claim under the Medical Malpractice Act for his own emotional distress.

Mr. Patrick settled with the defendants named in his claim, and then filed a petition with the Indiana Patient’s Compensation Fund for payment of excess damages.  The trial court, finding that the Adult Wrongful Death Statute applied to Mr. Patrick’s claim as a personal representative, awarded him damages for loss of love and companionship and other expenses.   Mr. Patrick was awarded an additional $600,000 for his emotional distress claim.

The Fund appealed Mr. Patrick’s award for his emotional distress claim, and the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed.

Speak with a personal injury lawyer today. Call: 317-488-5500

The Fund sought, and the Supreme Court granted, transfer.  Mr. Patrick argued that he was entitled to bring his emotional distress claim under the Medical Malpractice Act.  However, the Supreme Court held that the Medical Malpractice Act does not define “bodily injury” and held that requirement for bodily injury (or death) in the Medical Malpractice Act applies to the actual victim of the malpractice and does not apply to derivative claimants.

Complete a Free Case Evaluation form now

The Court further held that their decision in Chamberlain v. Walpole, 822 N.E.2nd 959, dictates that Mr. Patrick cannot seek damages for emotional distress in this case.   Justice Sullivan wrote that the Medical Malpractice Act serves as a procedural mechanism for claims of medical malpractice, and a derivative claimant can only pursue claims allowed at common law or under applicable statutes.  The Act does not create new causes of action that don’t otherwise exist, so whether Mr. Patrick has a claim for emotional distress depends on the Adult Wrongful Death Statute.  And, because claims for emotional distress are not allowed under the Adult Wrongful Death Statute, Mr. Patrick is not entitled to bring his derivative claim under the Medical Malpractice Act.

Have you been injured as a result of medical malpractice? Every Indianapolis medical malpractice lawyer at Christie Farrell Lee & Bell has experience and can help you explore your options.

Call 317-488-5500 or complete a Free Case Evaluation form

Categories

  • Medical Malpractice

Related Posts

Jun 03
How Medical Records Can Make or Break Your Car Accident Case
Medical records are one of the most powerful tools in any Indiana car accident claim. Whether you're seeking compensation for...
View Article
Jun 03
Proving Liability and Seeking Compensation in Rear-End Collisions
Rear-end accidents might seem like clear-cut cases, but the rear driver is not always to blame. Establishing responsibility requires a...
View Article
Jun 03
The Real Dangers of Distracted Driving: What You Need to Know
Despite laws banning texting and phone use while behind the wheel, distracted driving remains one of the most significant contributors...
View Article
Christie Farrell Lee & Bell
317-488-5500

Local Office

951 N Delaware St
Indianapolis, IN 46202
Map & Directions [+]

Quick Links

  • Home
  • Our Team
  • Practice Areas
  • Blog
  • Firm News
  • Video Center
  • Site Map
  • Privacy Policy

Practice Areas

  • Truck Accidents
  • Car Accidents
  • Catastrophic Injuries
  • Dog Bite Injury
  • Medical Malpractice
  • Motorcycle Accidents
  • Nursing Home Abuse
  • Personal Injury
  • Premises Liability
  • Product Liability
  • Traumatic Brain Injury
  • Wrongful Death
  • CooperSurgical Embryo Loss Lawsuit

Follow Us

YouTubeLinkedInFacebookGoogle BusinessYelp
Us News Logo Us News Logo 2025

The information on this website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. This information is not intended to create, and receipt or viewing does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship.

© 2025 All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer | Terms of Service

Phone Icon