From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Yeager v. Bloomington Obstetrics and Gynecology

Supreme Court of Indiana
Dec 2, 1992
604 N.E.2d 598 (Ind. 1992)

Summary

stating "that a blanket no-duty rule disallowing all claims based upon alleged preconception torts is unnecessary, unjust, and contrary to fundamental and traditional principles of Indiana tort law" and holding that a child's complaint "sufficiently state[d] a cognizable claim" against a physician who had failed to give the child's mother a RhoGAM shot after her first child was born with Rh positive blood

Summary of this case from Anonymous Physician 1 v. White

Opinion

No. 53S01-9212-CV-951.

December 2, 1992.

Appeal from the Monroe Circuit Court, Divisions 3 4, Douglas R. Bridges and Elizabeth N. Mann, JJ.

Vernon J. Petri, David Schalk, Indianapolis, for appellants.

Gary J. Clendening, J. Suzette Vandivier, Harrell, Clendening Coyne, Bloomington, for appellees Bloomington Obstretics Gynecology, Dr. Walter Owens, Dr. William R. Anderson, Dr. Leland Matthews, and Dr. Brandt Ludlow.

David J. Mallon, Jr., Gloria A. Aplin, Ice Miller Donadio Ryan, Indianapolis, for appellee Local Counsel of Women d/b/a Bloomington Hosp.


The defendants seek transfer after the Court of Appeals reversed summary judgments entered in their favor and held that Scott Yeager's proposed complaint be permitted to proceed before the medical review panel. Yeager v. Bloomington Obstetrics (1992), Ind. App., 585 N.E.2d 696. Defendants urge us to accept transfer in order to resolve the conflict that exists between that opinion and the Court of Appeals' opinion in Walker v. Rinck (1991), Ind. App., 566 N.E.2d 1088. For the reasons set forth in our opinion granting transfer in Walker v. Rinck (1992), Ind., 604 N.E.2d 591, we agree with the Court of Appeals' opinion rendered in this case.

Accordingly, we grant transfer, summarily affirm the opinion of the Court of Appeals, and remand this cause to the trial court with instructions that Scott Yeager's proposed complaint be permitted to proceed before the medical review panel.

DeBRULER, GIVAN and DICKSON, JJ., concur.

SHEPARD, C.J., dissents for reasons explained in his dissenting opinion in Walker v. Rinck.


Summaries of

Yeager v. Bloomington Obstetrics and Gynecology

Supreme Court of Indiana
Dec 2, 1992
604 N.E.2d 598 (Ind. 1992)

stating "that a blanket no-duty rule disallowing all claims based upon alleged preconception torts is unnecessary, unjust, and contrary to fundamental and traditional principles of Indiana tort law" and holding that a child's complaint "sufficiently state[d] a cognizable claim" against a physician who had failed to give the child's mother a RhoGAM shot after her first child was born with Rh positive blood

Summary of this case from Anonymous Physician 1 v. White
Case details for

Yeager v. Bloomington Obstetrics and Gynecology

Case Details

Full title:SCOTT WILLIS YEAGER AND MERLYN AND LORRAINE YEAGER, APPELLANTS…

Court:Supreme Court of Indiana

Date published: Dec 2, 1992

Citations

604 N.E.2d 598 (Ind. 1992)

Citing Cases

Town of Montezuma v. Downs

Were we to find otherwise, we would ignore the intent of the legislature as expressed in the statute.…

Martin v. St. John Hospital & Medical Center Corp.

Similarly we are persuaded that no floodgates will be opened by our opinion here. Yeager v Bloomington…