The Indiana Court of Appeals recently ruled on a significant case involving Brittney Keisler, who sought damages after the death of her newborn daughter, Lilee Keisler-Rushton. The court's decision has implications for how emotional distress claims are treated under the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act (MMA). This ruling affects not only Keisler but also sets a precedent for similar cases in Indiana.

Brittney Keisler gave birth to Lilee on October 29, 2018, at Hendricks Regional Health. Tragically, Lilee died on November 6, 2018, due to complications from a genetic condition called galactosemia, which health care providers failed to timely inform Keisler about. After settling with the health care providers for the maximum allowed under the MMA, Keisler sought additional damages from the Indiana Department of Insurance Patient’s Compensation Fund for emotional distress. The court's ruling on May 18, 2026, upheld the trial court's denial of her motion for summary judgment, stating that her emotional distress claim was not separate from her wrongful death claim.

Background

The parties involved in this case are Brittney Keisler, acting on behalf of her deceased daughter, and the Indiana Department of Insurance Patient’s Compensation Fund, represented by Holly W. Lambert. The dispute arose after Lilee's death, attributed to medical malpractice by health care providers who failed to notify Keisler about her daughter's condition in a timely manner.

After Lilee's death, Keisler went through the Medical Review Panel process and subsequently sued the health care providers. In 2025, she settled her claims against them for $400,000, which was the maximum liability under the MMA. Following this settlement, Keisler petitioned the Fund for excess compensation, seeking $1,250,000 for Lilee's wrongful death and an additional $1,650,000 for emotional distress.

The Fund objected to these amounts, leading Keisler to file a motion for partial summary judgment. She argued that her emotional distress claim was separate from her wrongful death claim and entitled her to recover under two statutory caps. However, the trial court disagreed and denied her motion, prompting Keisler to appeal the decision.

The Ruling

The Indiana Court of Appeals, led by Judge Felix, affirmed the trial court's decision, stating that the emotional distress claim was inseparable from the wrongful death claim. The court emphasized that Keisler's emotional distress arose directly from the malpractice that caused Lilee's death.

“Both are premised on a failure to inform Keisler of Lilee’s galactosemia that ultimately resulted in Lilee’s death,” the court stated. “Assuming that Keisler is correct that she was a traditional patient of Hendricks Regional Health, her injury did not arise from the care she received; instead, it resulted from the care Lilee received.”

The court's opinion highlighted that the MMA limits recoveries to the actual victim of malpractice, which in this case was Lilee. The court noted that Keisler, while a mother and a patient, was not the direct victim of the malpractice but rather a third-party patient whose emotional distress stemmed from her daughter's suffering.

Judge Felix pointed out that the MMA's framework does not allow for separate claims for emotional distress when they are derived from the same incident of malpractice that resulted in a patient's death. The court's ruling relied on established precedents, including previous rulings in cases like Butcher and Cutchin, which clarified the definitions of traditional and third-party patients under the MMA.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for future malpractice cases in Indiana. It clarifies that emotional distress claims tied to the death of a patient cannot be pursued separately from wrongful death claims under the MMA. This means that parents or guardians who experience emotional distress due to medical malpractice resulting in a child's death may face limitations in their ability to seek additional damages.

The decision reinforces the MMA's purpose of capping recoveries to mitigate the costs associated with malpractice claims. By limiting recoveries to the actual victim of malpractice, the court aims to maintain the stability of the healthcare system while addressing the concerns of emotional distress claims.

Legal experts believe this ruling could discourage parents from pursuing emotional distress claims in similar cases, as the precedent now indicates that such claims may be viewed as derivative and not entitled to separate statutory caps. This could ultimately affect the strategies of attorneys representing clients in medical malpractice cases.

What's Next

As of now, it remains unclear whether Keisler will appeal the decision to the Indiana Supreme Court. Legal analysts suggest that further litigation may arise as families affected by similar circumstances seek clarification on their rights under the MMA. Additionally, there may be calls for legislative changes to address the treatment of emotional distress claims in medical malpractice cases.