6 Indiana opinions name it 1 courts 2003–2026 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Spangler v. Bechtelgreen2 sentences2026See I.C. § 34-18-2-22 (providing “patient” includes “a person having a claim of any kind, whether derivative or otherwise, as a result of alleged malpractice”); Spangler, 958 N.E.2d at 472 (“Claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress, if arising from alleged medical malpractice, are subject to the MMA . . . because they are ‘otherwise’ a result of alleged malpractice.” (Emphasis in original).). 2026Keisler’s “inadvertent[]” participation in Lilee’s death, Appellant’s Br. at 37, does not change this analysis. 4 The bystander rule provides that a plaintiff may seek damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress where she has “witnessed or come to the scene soon thereafter the death or severe injury of certain classes of relatives.” Spangler v. Bechtel, 958 N.E.2d 458, 466 (Ind. 2011) (citing Atl. | 1 | 1 |
Murphy v. Mortellgreen1 sentence2023Health care is “an act or treatment performed or furnished, or that should have been performed or furnished, by a health care provider for, to, or on behalf of a patient during the patient’s medical care, treatment, or confinement.” Ind. Code § 34-18-2-13 . [6] In Howard Reg’l Health Sys. v. Gordon, the Indiana Supreme Court held: Indiana courts understand the [MMA] to cover “curative or salutary conduct of a health care provider acting within his or her professional capacity,” Murphy v. Mortell, 684 N.E.2d 1185, 1188 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997), but not conduct “unrelated to the promotion of a patie | 1 | 1 |
B.R. ex rel. Todd v. Stategreen1 sentence2023And “health care” is “an act or treatment performed or furnished, or that should have been performed or furnished, by a health care provider for, to, or on behalf of a patient during the patient’s medical care, treatment, or confinement.” [Ind. Code] § 34-18-2-13. 11 1 N.E.3d 708, 713 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied. | 1 | 1 |
Collins v. Thakkargreen1 sentence2023Health care is “an act or treatment performed or furnished, or that should have been performed or furnished, by a health care provider for, to, or on behalf of a patient during the patient’s medical care, treatment, or confinement.” Ind. Code § 34-18-2-13 . [6] In Howard Reg’l Health Sys. v. Gordon, the Indiana Supreme Court held: Indiana courts understand the [MMA] to cover “curative or salutary conduct of a health care provider acting within his or her professional capacity,” Murphy v. Mortell, 684 N.E.2d 1185, 1188 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997), but not conduct “unrelated to the promotion of a patie | 1 | 1 |
Vergara Ex Rel. Vergara v. Doangreen1 sentence2003“In malpractice cases, health care providers must exercise that degree of care, skill, and proficiency exercised by reasonably careful, skillful, and prudent practitioners in the same class acting under the same or similar circumstances.” Grzan v. Charter Hosp. of Northwest Ind., 702 N.E.2d 786, 790 (Ind.Ct.App.1998) (citing Vergara v. Doan, 593 N.E.2d 185, 187 (Ind.1992)). | 1 | 1 |
Grzan v. Charter Hospital of Northwest Indianagreen1 sentence2003“In malpractice cases, health care providers must exercise that degree of care, skill, and proficiency exercised by reasonably careful, skillful, and prudent practitioners in the same class acting under the same or similar circumstances.” Grzan v. Charter Hosp. of Northwest Ind., 702 N.E.2d 786, 790 (Ind.Ct.App.1998) (citing Vergara v. Doan, 593 N.E.2d 185, 187 (Ind.1992)). | 1 | 1 |
Goleski v. Fritzgreen1 sentence2003Goleski v. Fritz, 768 N.E.2d 889, 891 (Ind.2002). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Indiana Patient's Compensation Fund v. Winkle
green
1 sentence2009We recently explained the difference between a derivative claim and an independent claim for damages for emotional distress with regard to the respective Statutes in Indiana Patient's Compensation Fund v. Winkle, 863 N.E.2d 1 (Ind.Ct.App.2007), reh'g denied, trans. denied. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
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.