medical standard in Indiana

2020See Ward v. State, 50 N.E.3d 752, 764 (Ind. 2016) (concluding that “identifying a domestic-violence victim’s attacker is integral to the medical standard of care for” domestic violence cases). [21] In Ward, our supreme court observed that “a forensic nurse's primary function is providing medical treatment, not gathering evidence.

2017Id. (emphasis in original). [13] Nothing in the particular circumstances of this case leads us away from our Supreme Court’s conclusion in Ward that identifying a domestic violence Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1606-CR-1269 | June 23, 2017 Page 6 of 8 victim’s attacker is integral to the medical standard of care for such cases.3 Here, the nurse testified that knowing the identity of the attacker “is helpful in providing resources for the patient” and ensuring their safety in the hospital by alerting security and making the patient’s chart private.

2017See VanPatten, 986 N.E.2d at 260 (the second prong satisfied by victim’s statements because “they assist medical providers in recommending potential treatment for sexually transmitted disease, pregnancy testing, psychological counseling, and discharge instructions”). [12] The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted Baer’s testimony regarding what M.B. told her about her injuries because the two prongs of the medical exception of the hearsay rule were satisfied.

2017See VanPatten, 986 N.E.2d at 260 (the second prong satisfied by victim’s statements because “they assist medical providers in recommending potential treatment for sexually transmitted disease, pregnancy testing, psychological counseling, and discharge instructions”). [12] The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted Baer’s testimony regarding what M.B. told her about her injuries because the two prongs of the medical exception of the hearsay rule were satisfied.

2017See McClain, 675 N.E.2d at 331 (“where a patient consults a physician, the declarant’s desire to seek and receive treatment may be inferred from the circumstances”). [11] Additionally, Baer explained a history of assault was necessary for treatment and diagnosis “[b]ecause if I would find any injuries based on the story she -- she is consistent with the story, I would obtain a swab of that area.” (Tr.

2015See id.

2010The "appropriate standard of care" about which the medical review panel is obliged to express its expert opinion is a medical standard, and therefore does not encompass non-medical concerns such as retention of records: "The standard of care is the degree of care, skill, and proficiency exercised by reasonably careful, skillful, and prudent practitioners in the same class to which the physician belongs, acting under the same or similar cireamstances." Whyde v. Czarkowski, 659 N.E.2d 625, 630 (Ind.Ct.App.1995), trans. denied.