Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the denial of a hospital's motion to dismiss a medical malpractice complaint because
the claimant, who was employed by the hospital and on duty at the time of the injury, could only file a complaint against
the employer under the Worker's Compensation Act.
In ProCare Rehab Services of Community Hospital v. Janice S. Vitatoe, No. 49A02-0707-CV-583, Janice Vitatoe,
who was employed as a registered nurse by Community, slipped and fell during her shift and injured her right hamstring. She
began treatment with an orthopedic surgeon at Central Indiana Orthopedics and underwent outpatient physical therapy at ProCare
Rehab Services, which is a department of Community.
Vitatoe filed a worker's compensation claim against Community. After she was no longer employed by the hospital, she
filed a proposed medical malpractice complaint with the Indiana Department of Insurance, alleging negligence of her orthopedic
surgeon, Central Indiana Orthopedics, and ProCare.
Vitatoe and Community settled the worker's compensation claim and Community moved to dismiss the medical malpractice
complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The trial court denied Community's motion.
The Worker's Compensation Act contains an exclusivity provision that the rights and remedies granted to an employee through
the act "shall exclude all other rights and remedies of such employee … at common law or otherwise …" The Indiana
Supreme Court has ruled that the Worker's Compensation Act's exclusivity provision bars a court from hearing any common
law action brought by the employee based on the same injuries.
Community argues that Vitatoe's injuries arose out of and in the course of her employment so her medical malpractice
claim against Community is barred under the Worker's Compensation Act. Vitatoe counters that the injuries that form the
basis for her complaint didn't arise from and in the course of her employment but during treatment for the original injury.
Citing previous caselaw, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled that if an employee's injury happened during the course of
her employment is aggravated by treatment for that injury, regardless of where, when, by whom, and for how long the treatment
was provided, the injury caused by the treatment will be deemed as a matter of law to have come out of and in the course of
her employment for purposes of the Worker's Compensation Act. As a result, the employee's exclusive remedy against
the employer for the injury caused by the treatment is under the act, wrote Judge Terry Crone.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.