## Facts

- W. Ruth Mullins was admitted for a vaginal hysterectomy at Parkview Hospital to be performed by Marvin E. Eastlund, M.D.
- On Eastlund’s consent form, Mullins crossed out provisions consenting to the presence of “healthcare learners” and to photography/videotaping, reflecting a desire for privacy.
- Anesthesiologist Kathryn B. Carboneau, M.D., told Mullins she would personally handle anesthesia; Mullins signed an anesthesia consent stating care would be provided by the undersigned or another privileged anesthesia physician.
- After Mullins was placed under general anesthesia, Parkview employee Colin White brought LaRea VanHoey, an EMT student needing patient intubations for certification, into the operating room.
- White asked Carboneau whether Mullins was suitable for student intubation; Carboneau agreed and permitted VanHoey to attempt the intubation under supervision.
- VanHoey attempted intubation multiple times without success; blood was observed on the laryngoscope, and Carboneau then completed the intubation.
- Mullins later was diagnosed with an esophageal laceration attributed to the intubation attempts, requiring additional surgery and extended recovery.
- Mullins sued multiple defendants, asserting, among other theories, that VanHoey’s intubation attempts constituted battery because Mullins did not consent to student involvement.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants on all claims; the intermediate appellate court revived the battery claim; the Indiana Supreme Court accepted transfer.

## Issues

1. Whether, under Indiana law, battery requires intent to cause harmful or offensive contact (not merely intent to touch).
2. Whether a supervised medical trainee who performs a procedure believing permission exists can be liable for battery absent evidence of intent to cause harm or offense.
3. Whether summary judgment was proper on the battery claim where the record showed lack of consent allegations but no evidence of the trainee’s intent to cause harmful or offensive contact.

## Decision

- The Indiana Supreme Court reversed the intermediate appellate decision and reinstated summary judgment for the defendants on the battery theory as applied to VanHoey.
- The court held that Indiana battery requires proof the defendant intended the harmful or offensive contact itself, not merely the physical touching.
- The court found no evidence VanHoey intended to cause harmful or offensive contact or knew such contact was substantially certain to result.
- The court concluded VanHoey acted with permission from the supervising anesthesiologist and had no reason to believe Mullins had withheld consent to student involvement, defeating the intent element required for battery.

## Legal Principles

- Battery in Indiana requires: (1) harmful or offensive touching; (2) without consent; and (3) intent to cause the harmful or offensive touching (or knowledge it is substantially certain), not merely intent to perform the act or make contact.
- In medical settings, an alleged lack of patient consent does not by itself establish battery absent evidence the provider intended to bring about harmful or offensive contact.
- A supervised trainee who performs a procedure under a supervising clinician’s authorization, and without knowledge of withheld consent, generally lacks the mental state required for battery; the claim, if any, sounds in negligence or malpractice rather than intentional tort.

## Conclusion

The court held that medical battery requires intent to cause harmful or offensive contact, and because the EMT student acted under supervision with permission and without evidence of such intent, summary judgment against the battery claim was proper.


Mullins v. Parkview Hosp., Inc., 865 N.E.2d 608 (Ind. 2007)