Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 34-18-3-3 (2026)
Qualifications; proof of officers, agents, and employees of health care providers; temporary licensees
✓ current as of May 2026
Sec. 3. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), the officers, agents, and employees of a health care provider, while acting in the course and scope of their employment, may be qualified under this chapter if the following conditions are met:
(1) The officers, agents, and employees are individually named or are members of a named class in the proof of financial responsibility filed by the health care provider under IC 34-18-4.
(2) The surcharge assessed under IC 34-18-5 is paid.
(b) An officer, agent, or employee of a health care provider who has a temporary license under IC 25-1-5.7 is qualified under this article while the temporary license is in effect.
[Pre-1998 Recodification Citation: 27-12-3-3.]
As added by P.L.1-1998, SEC.13. Amended by P.L.69-2022, SEC.13; P.L.178-2022(ts), SEC.20.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases, 2001–2014 · leading case: Catt v. Bd. of Com'rs of Knox Cnty., 779 N.E.2d 1 (Ind. 2002).
Catt v. Bd. of Com'rs of Knox Cnty., 779 N.E.2d 1 (Ind. 2002). “Indiana Code section 34-18-3-3(8) provides in relevant part: "A governmental entity or an employee acting within the seope of the employee's employment is not liable if a loss results from .”
Harness v. Schmitt, 924 N.E.2d 162 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). “In determining whether Indiana Code § 34-18-3-3(8) provides immunity for a police officer, we first determine whether the officer was acting within the scope of his or her employment when the injury to a plaintiff occurred and, second, whether the officer was engaged in the…”
Veolia Water Indianapolis, LLC v. Nat'l Trust Ins. Co., 3 N.E.3d 1 (Ind. 2014). “But as it stands, the City cannot establish that it is entitled to statutory immunity for a discretionary function under Ind.Code § 34-18-3-3(7). II. The City is Entitled to Common Law Sovereign Immunity on Claims Regarding the Adequacy of the Water Supply As the Court of…”
Noble Cnty. v. Rogers, 745 N.E.2d 194 (Ind. 2001). “" Indiana Code section 34-18-3-3(20) provides for governmental immunity from errors resulting from the Y2K bug so long as the act or omission did not amount to "gross negligence, willful or wanton misconduct, or intentional misconduct.”
St. Joseph Cnty. Police Dept. v. Shumaker, 812 N.E.2d 1143 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). “" The law enforcement immunity provision is now located at Indiana Code § 34-18-3-3 (Burns Code Ed. Supp.”
Januchowski v. N. Indiana Commuter Transp. Dist., 905 N.E.2d 1041 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). “5 Ind.Code § 34-18-3-3; State v. Willits, 773 N.”
City of Hammond v. Reffitt, 789 N.E.2d 998 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). “With all of the above in mind, we find that no matter how harsh the result, the actions of Officers Llanes and Malacina were immune from liability under I.C. § 34-18-3-3(8). Therefore, we find that Hammond is entitled to immunity from liability under the TTCA.”
Bd. of Com'rs of Cnty. of Harrison v. Lowe, 753 N.E.2d 708 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). “To determine whether or not a part of the highway is extra hazardous necessitating a reduction in the speed limit pursuant to IC 9-4-1-61, an inspection of the highway would have to be performed.”
Giles v. Brown Cnty. ex rel. Bd. of Commissioners, 839 N.E.2d 1258 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). “Ind.Code § 34-18-3-3(19) lists six activities related to an enhanced emergency communication system for which a government entity or its employees are not liable: "development, adoption, implementation, operation, maintenance, or use.”
Patrick v. Miresso, 821 N.E.2d 856 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). “The Seymour majority held that the State was entitled to law enforcement immunity under Indiana Code Section 34-18-3-3(8), rejecting the plaintiffs' claim that the term "enforcement of a law" is ambiguous: We do not accept that contention, for in our view, an officer engaged in…”
F.D. v. Indiana Dep't of Fam. Servs., 973 N.E.2d 1186 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). “First, the court concluded that Child Services is entitled to immunity pursuant to Indiana Code Section 34-18-3-3(6) because Child Services, “by and acting through” Cage, “participated in” L.”
Linden v. Health Care 2000, Inc., 809 N.E.2d 929 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). “Indiana Code Section 34-18-3-3 reads in pertinent part, A governmental entity of an employee acting within the seope of the employee's employment is not liable if a loss results from the following: [[Image here]] (8) The adoption and enforeement of or failure to adopt or enforce…”
Ind. Code § 34-18-3-3(11): 1 case
Bd. of Com'rs of Cnty. of Harrison v. Lowe, 753 N.E.2d 708 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). “To determine whether or not a part of the highway is extra hazardous necessitating a reduction in the speed limit pursuant to IC 9-4-1-61, an inspection of the highway would have to be performed.”
Ind. Code § 34-18-3-3(19): 1 case
Giles v. Brown Cnty. ex rel. Bd. of Commissioners, 839 N.E.2d 1258 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). “Ind.Code § 34-18-3-3(19) lists six activities related to an enhanced emergency communication system for which a government entity or its employees are not liable: "development, adoption, implementation, operation, maintenance, or use.”
Ind. Code § 34-18-3-3(20): 1 case
Noble Cnty. v. Rogers, 745 N.E.2d 194 (Ind. 2001). “" Indiana Code section 34-18-3-3(20) provides for governmental immunity from errors resulting from the Y2K bug so long as the act or omission did not amount to "gross negligence, willful or wanton misconduct, or intentional misconduct.”
Ind. Code § 34-18-3-3(6): 1 case
F.D. v. Indiana Dep't of Fam. Servs., 973 N.E.2d 1186 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). “First, the court concluded that Child Services is entitled to immunity pursuant to Indiana Code Section 34-18-3-3(6) because Child Services, “by and acting through” Cage, “participated in” L.”
Ind. Code § 34-18-3-3(7): 1 case
Veolia Water Indianapolis, LLC v. Nat'l Trust Ins. Co., 3 N.E.3d 1 (Ind. 2014). “But as it stands, the City cannot establish that it is entitled to statutory immunity for a discretionary function under Ind.Code § 34-18-3-3(7). II. The City is Entitled to Common Law Sovereign Immunity on Claims Regarding the Adequacy of the Water Supply As the Court of…”
Ind. Code § 34-18-3-3(8): 4 cases
Catt v. Bd. of Com'rs of Knox Cnty., 779 N.E.2d 1 (Ind. 2002). “Indiana Code section 34-18-3-3(8) provides in relevant part: "A governmental entity or an employee acting within the seope of the employee's employment is not liable if a loss results from .”
Harness v. Schmitt, 924 N.E.2d 162 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). “In determining whether Indiana Code § 34-18-3-3(8) provides immunity for a police officer, we first determine whether the officer was acting within the scope of his or her employment when the injury to a plaintiff occurred and, second, whether the officer was engaged in the…”
City of Hammond v. Reffitt, 789 N.E.2d 998 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). “With all of the above in mind, we find that no matter how harsh the result, the actions of Officers Llanes and Malacina were immune from liability under I.C. § 34-18-3-3(8). Therefore, we find that Hammond is entitled to immunity from liability under the TTCA.”
Patrick v. Miresso, 821 N.E.2d 856 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). “The Seymour majority held that the State was entitled to law enforcement immunity under Indiana Code Section 34-18-3-3(8), rejecting the plaintiffs' claim that the term "enforcement of a law" is ambiguous: We do not accept that contention, for in our view, an officer engaged in…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.