Indianapolis, IN – The Indiana Supreme Court has issued a significant ruling in a medical malpractice case, Zainab Abbas, M.D., Morgan Mittler, R.N., and Methodist Hospital v. Hetep Bilal Neter-Nu, addressing key issues including hospital liability, jury instructions, and the calculation of prejudgment interest. The decision, handed down on June 26, 2025, affirms a jury’s verdict in favor of the patient, Hetep Bilal Neter-Nu, but remands the case for recalculation of prejudgment interest.
The case stems from an incident in July 2015 when Franklyn Neter-Nu, a truck driver, sought treatment at Methodist Hospital for nausea and vomiting. Three weeks later, he underwent a below-the-knee amputation of his right leg. Neter-Nu sued Methodist Hospital, Dr. Zainab Abbas, and Nurse Morgan Mittler, alleging that Nurse Mittler’s negligent placement of an IV in his foot, despite lacking training and a doctor’s order, led to his amputation. He also claimed Dr. Abbas negligently failed to identify and treat the foot, and Methodist Hospital was vicariously liable for its employees’ actions.
A jury found in favor of Neter-Nu, awarding him $11,000,000, which was later reduced to the statutory cap of $1,250,000. The trial court also awarded Neter-Nu $79,993.40 in prejudgment interest.
The case journeyed through the Court of Appeals, which had reversed the jury verdict and remanded for a new trial, citing errors in denying Methodist’s motion for judgment on the evidence and in jury instructions related to superseding cause and vicarious liability.
However, the Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer, vacating the Court of Appeals’ decision.
Key Holdings from the Supreme Court:
* Hospital Liability: The Supreme Court found that the trial court erred by allowing the jury to consider Methodist Hospital’s direct liability or vicarious liability for agents other than Dr. Abbas and Nurse Mittler, as there was insufficient expert testimony to support such claims. However, due to the principle of joint-and-several liability in medical malpractice cases, this error did not necessitate reversing the jury verdict. Joint-and-several liability means each negligent defendant is responsible for the entire damages award, regardless of their individual degree of negligence. The error primarily impacts who pays the damages before the Patient’s Compensation Fund covers the balance.
* Jury Instructions: The Court upheld the trial court’s refusal to give the Providers’ proposed jury instructions on superseding cause (Neter-Nu’s delay in seeking follow-up care breaking the chain of causation) and avoiding hindsight in evaluating the standard of care. The Court reasoned that the trial court’s instructions on causation effectively covered the issue of superseding cause by limiting liability to foreseeable results. Similarly, the instruction to evaluate care based on what a reasonable provider would do “under the same or similar circumstances” adequately addressed the hindsight concern.
* Evidentiary Rulings: The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision to exclude medical records detailing Neter-Nu’s disruptive behavior in prior hospitalizations and certain emails from Neter-Nu’s expert witness. The medical records were deemed impermissible character evidence, and the Providers failed to lay the necessary foundation for using the emails to refresh recollection or impeach the expert.
* Prejudgment Interest: The Court determined that the trial court’s error in denying Methodist’s Rule 50(A) motion necessitates recalculating the prejudgment interest based on the Providers’ statutory liability under the Medical Malpractice Act (MMA). Under the MMA, if a healthcare provider is solely liable due to an agent’s negligence, the total payable amount on behalf of the agent and provider is $250,000. This means Neter-Nu can recover $500,000 ($250,000 for Dr. Abbas and Methodist, and $250,000 for Nurse Mittler and Methodist) before the Patient’s Compensation Fund pays the remaining balance.
In conclusion, while affirming the jury’s finding of liability against the healthcare providers, the Indiana Supreme Court has sent the case back to the trial court to correctly calculate the prejudgment interest in line with statutory limits.