Court Opinion

ID: 9744705
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 22:13:33.539207+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:51.044945
License: Public Domain

SHIELDS, Judge,
concurring in result.
I concur in result because the issue raised by John Dillon, Commissioner of the *429Indiana Department of Insurance and Administrator of the Patient's Compensation Fund (the Fund), is foreclosed by the settlement made by Dr. Chambers and his insurer with Linda Callaway and, therefore, the trial" court did not err when it awarded Callaway excess damages from the Fund. In my opinion, the Fund's arguments that the Act does not apply to Dr. Chambers's sexual relationship with Callaway and that Callaway's injuries were not the proximate result of health care services provided by Dr. Chambers raise an issue of liability rather than an issue of whether particular damages asserted by Callaway are compen-sable within the Act. Therefore, because "a health care provider or its insurer [Dr. Chambers and his insurer] has agreed to settle its liability on a claim by payment of its policy limits," IC 16-9.5-4-8 (1988), this court's decisions in Dillon v. Glover (1992), Ind.App., 597 N.E.2d 971, and Eakin v. Kumiega (1991), Ind.App., 567 N.E.2d 150, compel the determination that the issues the Fund attempts to present are precluded.