1
Ind . Code § 34-30-32-4 defines “ person ” to mean “( 1 ) an individual ; ( 2 ) an association ; ( 3 ) an institution ; ( 4 ) a corporation ; ( 5 ) a company ; ( 6 ) a trust ; ( 7 ) a limited liability company ; ( 8 ) a partnership ; ( 9 ) a political subdivision ; ( 10 ) a government office , department , division , bureau , or other body of government ; ( 11 ) a nonprofit corporation ; or ( 12 ) any other organization or entity .” 2 The Immunity Provision applies to tort claims that accrued on or after March 1 , 2020 and is set to automatically
expire on December 31 , 2024 . I . C . §§ 34-30-32-1 and 11 . 3 I . C . § 34-30-32-8 ( 1 )( 2 ).
4 I . C . § 34-18-2-24 . 5 defines “ qualified provider ” to mean “ a health care provider that is qualified under this article ( or by IC 27-12 before its repeal ) by complying with the procedures set forth in IC 34-18-3 ( or IC 27-12-3 before its repeal ).” 5 On April 29 , 2021 , Governor Holcomb signed House Bill 1002 into law as Public Law 166-2021 , which , in part ,
clarifies which injuries arise from COVID-19 ( and are therefore protected from liability ) and protects health care providers from professional discipline for acts or omissions arising out of COVID-19 . See H . B . No . 1002 , 1st Reg . Sess . ( Ind . 2021 ). These provisions , like the Immunity Provision , do not include protections for acts or omissions which constitute gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct and provide no clarification regarding the procedure for claims that are on their face not barred by these immunity provisions .
6
Ramsey v . Moore , 959 N . E . 2d 246 , 250 ( Ind . 2012 ).
7
I . C . § 34-18-10-22 .
8
Griffith v . Jones , 602 N . E . 2d 107 , 110 ( Ind . 1992 ); see also I . C . § 34-18-11-1 .
9
This conclusion is further supported by a provision in House Enrolled Act 1002 which provides that claimants who have a personal injury or wrongful death claim that arises out of COVID-19 but is not barred by the provision ( because the act or omission constitutes gross negligence , willful or wanton misconduct , or intentional misrepresentation ) must “ comply with all of the provisions of IC 34-18 ( medical malpractice act ).” H . B . No . 1002 , at § 13 .
10
York v . Fredrick , 947 N . E . 2d 969 , 977-78 ( Ind . Ct . App . 2011 ).
11
I . C . § 34-18-1-22 provides : ( a ) The panel has the sole duty to express the panel ’ s expert opinion as to whether or not the evidence supports the conclusion that the defendant or defendants acted or failed to act within the appropriate standards of care as charged in the complaint . ( b ) After reviewing all evidence and after any examination of the panel by counsel representing either party , the panel shall , within thirty ( 30 ) days , give one ( 1 ) or more of the following expert opinions , which must be in writing and signed by the panelists : ( 1 ) The evidence supports the conclusion that the defendant or defendants failed to comply with the appropriate standard of care as charged in the complaint . ( 2 ) The evidence does not support the conclusion that the defendant or defendants failed to meet the applicable standard of care as charged in the complaint . ( 3 ) There is a material issue of fact , not requiring expert opinion , bearing on liability for consideration by the court or jury . ( 4 ) The conduct complained of was or was not a factor of the resultant damages . If so , whether the plaintiff suffered :
RBELAW . com
21