The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed earlier this week that a claim filed against some health care providers over corneal transplant tissue taken from the wrong deceased patient falls outside the state’s Medical Malpractice Act.
The appellate court also reversed a lower court denial of a hospital’s motion for summary judgment and remanded the case for the entry of a summary judgment in the hospital’s favor.
An organ procurement organization had mistakenly identified 65-year-old Russell A. Foust, who was dying from sepsis at an Indiana hospital, as a registered organ and tissue donor, according to the opinion. Hours after Russell’s death on Sept. 21, 2021, hospital officials notified the organ procurement organization, which is not named in the opinion.
The organization then checked his donor eligibility via a coordinator.
The coordinator searched the Indiana Donor Registry and mistakenly matched Russell A. with a Russell N. Foust who was a registered donor, according to the opinion. The coordinator contacted Russell’s wife, Diana, who was surprised that her husband was a donor given their religious beliefs prohibit anatomical gifts.
After receiving a similar notification from the eye bank, she gave her consent for the procedure. Russell’s corneal tissue was taken later that same day.
The eye bank discovered the registration mismatch the next day and notified Diana Foust, who later sued all the parties involved for medical malpractice and general negligence.
The appellate court affirmed in an opinion issued Monday that Indiana’s Medical Malpractice Act does not apply in this case because the challenged conduct — searching the donor registry — does not qualify as health care.
The 1975 malpractice act limits damages for claims, among other restrictions.
The court also concluded that the hospital did not have a legal duty to search the donor registry under Indiana’s Revised Uniform Anatomical Gift Act. The health care providers also were not named in the opinion.
Judge Leanna K. Weissman wrote the opinion for the case, which was appealed from Hamilton Superior Court.
The case is Anonymous Healthcare Provider 1, et al. v. Diana Foust, 25A-CT-3212.
This article was first published by The Indiana Lawyer.
