Case Title: Jim Atterholt, Commissioner of the Indiana Dept. of Insurance v. Geneva Herbst, Personal Rep. of the Estate of Jeffrey A. Herbst

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: indiana

Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Date: 2009-06-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE 
Elizabeth H. Knotts 
 
 
 
 
 
Steven L. Langer 
Rori L. Goldman  
 
 
 
 
 
Tara M. Wozniak 
Indianapolis, Indiana 
 
 
 
 
 
Valparaiso, Indiana 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS FOR AMICUS CURIAE  
 
 
 
 
INDIANA STATE MEDICAL ASSOCIATION 
Thomas J. Costakis 
Libby Y. Mote 
Indianapolis, Indiana 
____________________________________________________________________________ 
 
In the 
Indiana Supreme Court  
_________________________________ 
 
No. 49S04-0806-CV-344 
 
JIM ATTERHOLT, COMMISSIONER OF 
THE INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE, 
AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE INDIANA  
PATIENT’S COMPENSATION FUND,  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Appellant (Defendant below), 
 
v. 
 
GENEVA HERBST, PERSONAL 
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF 
JEFFREY A. HERBST, DECEASED, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Appellee (Plaintiff below). 
_________________________________ 
 
Appeal from the Marion Superior Court, No. 49D07-0511-PL-045446  
The Honorable Gerald Zore, Judge 
_________________________________ 
 
On Petition for Rehearing 
_________________________________ 
 
June 15, 2009 
Boehm, Justice. 
Under circumstances spelled out in the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act, the Act limits 
the liability of a health care provider and permits recovery of excess damages from the Patient’s 
FILED
CLERK
of the supreme court,
court of appeals and
tax court
June 15 2009, 11:02 am
 
2 
Compensation Fund.  In this case, our original opinion summarized our holding as follows: 
when a claimant seeks excess damages from the Patient’s Compensation Fund af-
ter obtaining a judgment or settlement from a health care provider in a medical 
malpractice case, the Fund may introduce evidence of the claimant’s preexisting 
risk of harm if it is relevant to establish the amount of damages, even if it is also 
relevant to liability issues that are foreclosed by the judgment or settlement. 
Atterholt v. Herbst, 902 N.E.2d 220, 220–21 (Ind. 2009). 
Plaintiff has petitioned for rehearing, contending that our opinion incorrectly states that 
its holding applies to cases tried to judgment as well as to claims that have been settled by 
agreement between the plaintiff and the health care provider or its insurer.  Plaintiff contends that 
ordinary principles of collateral estoppel and finality render any judgment reached after trial 
conclusive as to the amount of damages and therefore our holding should be limited to cases 
where the Fund is free to contest the award of damages by reason of the provisions contained in 
the Act that expressly authorize the Fund to contest petitions for “excess damages.”  These pro-
visions, by their terms, are limited to cases settled by agreement.  Ind. Code § 34-18-15-3 (2004). 
In this case, because the underlying case was settled, the damages remained subject to ob-
jection by the Fund.  We agree with plaintiff that in the ordinary case the amount of damages 
awarded by a judgment after trial is conclusive as to this issue.  Johnson v. St. Vincent Hosp., 
Inc., 273 Ind. 374, 400, 404 N.E.2d 585, 602 (1980).  We did not intend to imply that the issue 
necessarily or even frequently remains open after a trial.  We were not presented in this case with 
the question under what circumstances, if any, an issue as to the extent of the Fund’s liability 
may be left unresolved by a judgment in the underlying medical malpractice case.  We express 
no opinion on that issue.  Our opinion is restricted solely to the evidentiary question whether, if 
the extent of the Fund’s liability is in issue, the Fund may offer evidence relevant to the extent of 
damage which may include the patient’s risk of harm that preexisted the alleged malpractice.   
Shepard, C.J., and Dickson, Sullivan, and Rucker, JJ., concur.