Indiana Supreme Court Upholds COVID-19 Immunity for Hospitals
Indiana Supreme Court Upholds COVID-19 Immunity for Hospitals in Patient Death Case
INDIANAPOLIS — Hospitals and other medical providers cannot be held liable for complications that developed while treating a patient for COVID-19 during the pandemic emergency, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.
In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Christopher Goff, the court held that a trial judge properly dismissed claims brought by the estate of Elmer Waggoner and determined that providers who treated him were immune under state and federal statutes adopted during the pandemic.
The justices concluded that courts — not medical-review panels — can decide the threshold legal question of immunity. The high court’s order granted summary judgment for the defendants and reversed an Indiana Court of Appeals ruling.
“Our lawmakers chose as a matter of policy to immunize healthcare providers working the frontlines in response to the COVID-19 emergency,” Goff wrote in the opinion. “Assuming the patient here died from his bed sore rather than COVID-19, his bed sore still arose from treatment he was receiving due to his COVID-19.”
The underlying lawsuit was filed by Waggoner’s wife, who alleged negligence by more than 80 hospitals, doctors and other providers. Her husband was hospitalized with COVID-19 in early 2022, placed on a ventilator and medically immobilized. He later developed a severe pressure wound, or bed sore, that worsened and contributed to his death.
Providers argued that Indiana’s Healthcare Immunity Act, the Premises Immunity Act and the federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness, PREP, Act shielded them from liability because the treatment occurred during the COVID-19 state disaster emergency.
Indiana’s Supreme Court agreed, finding the care Waggoner received was directly connected to treatment for the virus and that his estate “failed” to show “any evidence to support finding gross negligence.”
“Even assuming the Estate is correct that Elmer died from a failure to treat his bed sore rather than COVID-19, he would not have developed the bed sore in the first place had he not developed COVID-19 and needed the assistance of a ventilator,” Goff wrote. “Therefore, his injuries arose from services provided in response to the ‘state disaster emergency’ or from ‘services, treatment, or other actions performed for COVID-19,’ making the Providers immune …”
The estate had argued that a medical-review panel should first determine whether negligence caused the death. But the court said immunity is a legal defense that does not require expert medical analysis.
Although medical providers “admit(ed)” that Waggoner “died from negligent treatment of an infected bed sore,” Goff said that such a defense “assumes negligence but denies liability.”
“(Waggoner’s estate) argues that the medical-review panel needs to decide if Elmer’s death was caused by COVID-19, the bed sore, or something else,” the justice continued. “But assuming the facts alleged in the complaint are true — Elmer developed a bed sore and then died — Elmer’s treatment still arose from COVID-19, making the Providers immune under the state immunity statutes.”
The court also said the immunity protections applied even though Waggoner died weeks after then-Gov. Eric Holcomb ended Indiana’s COVID-19 disaster emergency, because the treatment itself arose from care provided during the emergency. Waggoner also tested negative for COVID-19 weeks before he died.
