 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Longa v. Vicory6/7/2005
individual member of a hospital's medical staff. The doctors contend that Vicory's interpretation of the statute is flawed for several reasons, and they assert that the term "medical staff" as used in the statute means the medical staff as a group and that the medical staff's peer review responsibilities may be carried out through committees.
The interpretation of a statute presents a pure question of law for which disposition by summary judgment is particularly appropriate. State Auto Ins. Cos. v. Shannon, 769 N.E.2d 228, 231 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). On appeal from the denial of a motion for summary judgment, we apply the same standard as the trial court. Where, as here, the issue is a pure question of law, we review the case de novo, and no deference is given to the trial court's judgment. Bader v. Johnson, 732 N.E.2d 1212, 1216 (Ind. 2000). Summary judgment is appropriate only if the designated evidence shows that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Indiana Trial Rule 56(C).
When construing a statute, we give effect to the legislature's intent in enacting the provision. Ind. Civil Rights Comm'n v. Alder, 714 N.E.2d 632, 637 (Ind. 1999). Words used in a statute should be given their common and ordinary meanings. Id. The statute is examined as a whole, and it is often necessary to avoid excessive reliance on a strict literal meaning or the selective reading of individual words. Ind. Civil Rights Comm'n v. County Line Park, 738 N.E.2d 1044, 1048 (Ind. 2000). The legislature is presumed to have intended the language used in the statute to be applied logically and not to bring about an absurd or unjust result. Id.
Indiana Code section 16-21-2-7 provides: The medical staff of a hospital is responsible to the governing board for the following:
(1) The clinical and scientific work of the hospital.
(2) Advice regarding professional matters and policies.
(3) Review of the professional practices in the hospital for the purpose of reducing morbidity and mortality and for the improvement of the care of patients in the hospital, including the following:
(A) The quality and necessity of care provided.
(B) The preventability of complications and deaths occurring in the hospital.
The members of a medical staff committee who conduct a retrospective medical review have absolute immunity from civil liability for communications made in committee meetings and reports and recommendations made by the committee arising from deliberations by the committee to the governing board of the hospital or another duly authorized medical staff committee. I.C. ยง 16-21-2-8.
Only two cases have interpreted Indiana Code section 16-21-2-7. In Winona Mem'l Hosp. v. Kuester, 737 N.E.2d 824 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000), a panel of this court was asked to decide whether the Indiana Malpractice Act encompassed a claim for negligent credentialing. Kuester did not address whether individual doctors who were not members of the credentialing committee could be responsible for the committee's decision. This court found that a claim for negligent credentialing of a physician is an action for malpractice subject to the requirements of the Malpractice Act. Id. at 828.
Roberts v. Sankey, 813 N.E.2d 1195 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied, arose out of the same set of facts as the present case. The defendant, Dr. Sankey, was a member of the Hospital staff but had not treated the decedent, Nell Roberts. On appeal, Roberts argued that Indiana Code section 16-21-2-7 created a duty from Dr. Sankey to Nell to review the professional practices at the Hospital even in th
Page 1 2 3 Indiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|