7 Indiana opinions name it 1 courts 2003–2019 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Indiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Shacare Terry v. Community Health Network, Inc.green2 sentences2019Ind. Code § 34-18-8-1 ; Terry v. Cmty. Health Network, Inc. , 17 N.E.3d 389 , 393 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). 2016Ind. Code § 34-18-8-1 ; Terry v. Cmty. Health Network, Inc., 17 N.E.3d 389, 393 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). | 1 | 2 |
Stanley v. Walkergreen1 sentence2016Stanley involved the evidence a tortfeasor could introduce to attempt to reduce the injured party’s claim of damages. 906 N.E.2d 852, 858 (Ind.2009). | 1 | 1 |
Thomas v. Deitschgreen1 sentence2003The Medical Malpractice Act is applicable to “‘a patient or the representative of a patient who has a claim for bodily injury or death on account of malpractice.’ ” Thomas v. Deitsch, 743 N.E.2d 1218, 1220 (Ind.Ct.App.2001) (quoting Indiana Code Section 34-18-8-1). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hamilton v. Ashton
green
2 sentences2015Id. (citation omitted). 12 .If there is no informed consent, the patient has a claim for the fact that the surgery occurred. 2015Hamilton, 850 N.E.2d at 467 . 13 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Weldon v. Universal Reagents, Inc.
green
1 sentence2013Id. 6 The Medical Malpractice Act, Indiana Code article 34-18, applies to a patient or the representative of a patient who has a claim “for bodily injury or death on account of malpractice[.]” I.C. § 34-18-8-1. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Miller v. Terre Haute Regional Hospital
green
1 sentence2003In support of their argument, the Breeces point to Ind.Code § 34-18-8-1 which states that "[a] patient or the representative of a patient who has a claim under this article for bodily injury or death on account of malpractice may ... file a complaint in any *227 court of law having requisite jurisdiction." Furthermore, they cite Miller v. Terre Haute Regional Hospital, 603 N.E.2d 861 (Ind.1992) and Hopster v. Burgeson, 750 N.E.2d 841 (Ind.Ct.App.2001) for the proposition that a wrongful death claim is properly brought under the Medical Malpractice Act. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Hopster v. Burgeson
green
1 sentence2003In support of their argument, the Breeces point to Ind.Code § 34-18-8-1 which states that "[a] patient or the representative of a patient who has a claim under this article for bodily injury or death on account of malpractice may ... file a complaint in any *227 court of law having requisite jurisdiction." Furthermore, they cite Miller v. Terre Haute Regional Hospital, 603 N.E.2d 861 (Ind.1992) and Hopster v. Burgeson, 750 N.E.2d 841 (Ind.Ct.App.2001) for the proposition that a wrongful death claim is properly brought under the Medical Malpractice Act. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Warrick Hospital, Inc. v. Wallace
green
1 sentence2003The issue of whether the Medical Malpractice Act creates an independent cause of action was addressed in Warrick Hospital, Inc. v. Wallace, 435 N.E.2d 263 (Ind. Ct.App.1982), rev'd in part and affirmed in part. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.