Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

damagestrialmotionsummary judgmentmalpracticeduty of care
damagestrialmotionsummary judgmentmalpracticeduty of care

Related Cases

Gillingham v. Stephenson, 209 W.Va. 741, 551 S.E.2d 663
View Case »
Suits v. Glover, 260 Ala. 449, 71 So.2d 49, 43 A.L.R.2d 465
View Case »
Sheppard-Mobley v. King, 10 A.D.3d 70, 778 N.Y.S.2d 98, 2004 N.Y. Slip Op. 04696
View Case »
Sutherland v. Kroger Co., 144 W.Va. 673, 110 S.E.2d 716
View Case »
Thornton v. Garcini, 237 Ill.2d 100, 928 N.E.2d 804, 340 Ill.Dec. 557
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Bader v. Johnson, 732 N.E.2d 1212

Facts

The Johnsons had a child in 1979 who was born with hydrocephalus and severe disabilities, leading to her death at four months. Fearing another child with defects, they consulted Dr. Bader during Connie's subsequent pregnancies. An ultrasound at 19 ½ weeks gestation indicated abnormalities, but due to an office error, the results were not communicated to the Johnsons until it was too late to terminate the pregnancy. The child was born with multiple congenital defects and died four months later.

The facts most favorable to the Johnsons as nonmoving parties show they gave birth to their first child in 1979. Born with hydrocephalus and severe mental and motor retardation, the child required extensive medical care until her death at four months of age. When Connie became pregnant again in 1982, the Johnsons were fearful of bearing another child with congenital defects so they sought consultation with Dr. Bader. Testing showed the pregnancy was normal. Apparently the birth proceeded without complication. The Johnsons again sought counseling with Dr. Bader when Connie became pregnant in 1991. An amniocentesis performed at 19 ½ weeks gestation revealed no abnormalities. However, Dr. Bader performed an ultrasound test the same day that revealed a fetus with a larger than expected cavity within the brain and an unusual head shape. Dr. Bader requested her staff to schedule Connie for follow-up testing. Due to an office error however Connie was not scheduled and the ultrasound report was not forwarded to Connie's treating physician.

Issue

Did the healthcare providers breach their duty of care by failing to inform the Johnsons of the ultrasound results, and can the Johnsons recover damages for the resulting birth defects?

Did the healthcare providers breach their duty of care by failing to inform the Johnsons of the ultrasound results, and can the Johnsons recover damages for the resulting birth defects?

Rule

In Indiana, a medical malpractice claim requires proof of duty, breach of that duty, and compensable injury proximately caused by the breach. The court also held that emotional distress damages could be claimed under a modified impact rule.

In Indiana, a medical malpractice claim requires proof of duty, breach of that duty, and compensable injury proximately caused by the breach. The court also held that emotional distress damages could be claimed under a modified impact rule.

Analysis

The court found that the healthcare providers had a duty to disclose the ultrasound results, which indicated potential abnormalities. The failure to communicate these results constituted a breach of duty. The Johnsons established a prima facie case that this breach proximately caused their injury, as they would have terminated the pregnancy had they been informed of the findings. The court accepted the Johnsons' assertions as true for the purpose of the summary judgment motion.

The court found that the healthcare providers had a duty to disclose the ultrasound results, which indicated potential abnormalities. The failure to communicate these results constituted a breach of duty. The Johnsons established a prima facie case that this breach proximately caused their injury, as they would have terminated the pregnancy had they been informed of the findings. The court accepted the Johnsons' assertions as true for the purpose of the summary judgment motion.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the trial court's denial of summary judgment, allowing the Johnsons to pursue their medical malpractice claim and recover damages for the costs associated with the birth defects.

The court affirmed the trial court's denial of summary judgment, allowing the Johnsons to pursue their medical malpractice claim and recover damages for the costs associated with the birth defects.

Who won?

The Johnsons prevailed in the case because the court found that they had established a prima facie claim of medical malpractice due to the healthcare providers' failure to inform them of critical ultrasound findings.

The Johnsons prevailed in the case because the court found that they had established a prima facie claim of medical malpractice due to the healthcare providers' failure to inform them of critical ultrasound findings.

You must be