HB Ad Slot
HB Mobile Ad Slot
Court Reiterates Exclusive Arbitration Agreement May Override Indiana Medical Malpractice Act
Saturday, September 5, 2020

On Sept. 2, 2020, in Estate of King v. Aperion Care, the Indiana Court of Appeals remanded to the trial court a case involving a malpractice claim filed by the estate of a nursing home resident with instructions to grant the estate’s motion to compel arbitration.

The estate initially filed the malpractice claim with the Indiana Department of Insurance because the nursing home was a qualified provider under Indiana’s Medical Malpractice Act. However, the estate moved to compel arbitration when it discovered the nursing home’s admission agreement provided the “exclusive means for resolving any claims was arbitration.” 

The Court suggests qualified providers “could if they wished, make the right to seek arbitration subject to a condition precedent” such as presentation of malpractice claims to a medical review panel. However, this suggestion followed the court’s reiteration of its warning in Sanford v. Castleton Health Care Ctr., LLC, that overbroad exclusive arbitration provisions could contractually preempt the medical review panel process.

In light of exclusive arbitration clauses, like the one at issue, we query whether qualified medical health care providers retain the ability to avail themselves of the provisions and attendant benefits of the Medical Malpractice Act, including a limitation on the amount of the provider’s liability . . . and review of the plaintiff’s claim by a medical review panel.

HB Ad Slot
HB Mobile Ad Slot
HB Ad Slot
HB Mobile Ad Slot
HB Ad Slot
HB Mobile Ad Slot
 

NLR Logo

We collaborate with the world's leading lawyers to deliver news tailored for you. Sign Up to receive our free e-Newsbulletins

 

Sign Up for e-NewsBulletins