INDIANA— The Indiana Supreme Court has ruled that hospitals and medical professionals cannot be held liable for complications that developed while treating patients for COVID-19 during the pandemic emergency.
In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Christopher Goff, the state’s high court determined that legal immunity provided by state and federal statutes shields healthcare providers from negligence claims, even in cases where a patient’s primary cause of death was a secondary complication.
The Case of Elmer Waggoner
The ruling stems from a lawsuit filed by the estate of Elmer Waggoner against more than 80 healthcare providers. Waggoner was hospitalized with COVID-19 in early 2022 and placed on a ventilator. Due to being medically immobilized for his viral treatment, he developed a severe pressure wound—or bed sore—that eventually became infected.
Waggoner died in March 2022 from complications related to the wound, weeks after he had tested negative for the virus and after Governor Eric Holcomb had ended Indiana’s public health emergency. His estate argued that because he died of a bed sore, not COVID-19, the healthcare providers should not be immune from a malpractice suit.
Immunity as a Legal Threshold
The justices disagreed with a previous Indiana Court of Appeals ruling that suggested a medical-review panel should first determine if negligence occurred. Instead, the Supreme Court held that the question of immunity is a legal threshold for courts to decide.
“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,” Justice Goff wrote.
The court found that the care Waggoner received fell directly under three protective measures:
- Indiana’s Healthcare Immunity Act
- The Premises Immunity Act
- The Federal PREP Act
These statutes were designed to protect frontline workers and facilities from the threat of litigation while responding to the unprecedented “state disaster emergency.”
Ruling Highlights
- Scope of Immunity: The court ruled that as long as the injury “arose from” services provided in response to the pandemic, providers are shielded.
- Timing: Immunity applies to treatment that began during the emergency, even if the patient’s death occurred after the emergency declaration had expired.
- Standard of Proof: The court noted that the estate failed to provide evidence of “gross negligence,” which is generally required to overcome statutory immunity.
The decision grants summary judgment in favor of the medical providers, effectively ending the litigation. “Our lawmakers chose as a matter of policy to immunize healthcare providers working the frontlines,” Goff concluded, emphasizing that the bed sore was a direct byproduct of the life-saving measures required to treat the virus.
