# Thomas Haggerty and Cathy Haggerty v. Anonymous Party 1, Anonymous Party 2, and Anonymous Party 3

> Indiana Court of Appeals · November 20, 2013 · 998 N.E.2d 286

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9803454

## Case

- **Full name:** Thomas HAGGERTY And, Cathy Haggerty, Appellants/Cross-Appellees, v. ANONYMOUS PARTY 1, Appellee, Anonymous Party 2, and Anonymous Party 3, Appellees/Cross-Appellants
- **Court:** Indiana Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** November 20, 2013
- **Citations:** 998 N.E.2d 286; 2013 Ind. App. LEXIS 580; 2013 WL 6091620
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Baker
- **Judges:** Vaidik, Friedlander, Baker
- **Cited by:** 14 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9803454

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding the trial court had Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 26S-CT-71 | March 4, 2026 Page 6 of 15 jurisdiction to preliminarily determine the issue of immunity where expert opinion was not necessary to the determination
- explaining that our Court has the inherent authority to reconsider any decision of the motions panel while an appeal remains pending
- noting that immunity is an affirmative defense to a medical malpractice claim

## Opinion text

BAKER, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
While I concur with the majority that the trial court properly granted summary judgment as to API, I part ways with the majority's conclusion that AP2 and AP3 met their burden of establishing that there were no genuine issues of material fact with respect to immunity. As stated by the majority, immunity does not permit a person to physically abuse a person or deprive that person of a civil right except in accordance with commitment procedures. Ind.Code § 12-26-2-6(b).
Here, the facts as alleged by the Hag-gertys place Thomas in a small bathroom for approximately four hours before being admitted to AP2. The majority concedes that "the parties do not explain the cireum-stances surrounding Thomas's placement in a bathroom, other than noting that he left at one point to talk to Cathy." Op. at 295. In my view, this creates a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to preclude summary judgment and, consequently, immunity as to AP2 and AP3. Indeed, this incident is precisely the type of issue that the medical review panel should assess to determine whether the actions of AP2 were appropriate. Accordingly, I would have affirmed the trial court's denial of summary judgment.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9803454. Public record. Not legal advice.