Jasmine McNeil Ind. and on behalf of Ath'Dara McNeil Chyna Brown Imoni Brown v. Anonymous Hospital

FILED
Oct 05 2023, 9:18 am

CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES
Kelley J. Johnson ANONYMOUS HOSPITAL,
Law Office of Kelley J. Johnson ANONYMOUS M.D., AND
Indianapolis, Indiana ANONYMOUS EMERGENCY
PHYSICIANS, INC.
Zachary J. Stock Robert J. Palmer
Zachary J. Stock, Attorney at Law, P.C. May Oberfell Lorber
Carmel, Indiana Mishawaka, Indiana

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
ANONYMOUS MEDICAL
FOUNDATION, INC.
Michael G. Getty
Hunt Suedhoff Kearney LLP
South Bend, Indiana

IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Jasmine McNeil, individually October 5, 2023
and on behalf of Arth’dara
Court of Appeals Case No.
McNeil, Chyna Brown, and
22A-CC-2209
Imoni Brown, Minors,
Appellants-Plaintiffs, Appeal from the
St. Joseph Superior Court
v.
The Honorable
Mary Beth Bonaventura,
Anonymous Hospital, Judge Pro Tempore
Anonymous M.D., Anonymous
Emergency Physicians, Inc., Trial Court Cause No.
Anonymous Medical 71D07-2107-CC-2058

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CC-2209 | October 5, 2023 Page 1 of 34
 Foundation, Inc., and Amy L.
Beard, in her capacity as Acting
Commissioner of the
Department of Insurance,
Appellees-Defendants.

Opinion by Senior Judge Najam
Judges Bailey and Crone concur.

Najam, Senior Judge.

Statement of the Case
[1] Jasmine McNeil, individually and on behalf of her three children, submitted a

proposed complaint to the Indiana Department of Insurance against

Anonymous Hospital and other qualified health care providers (the
1
“Hospital”). Appellants’ Conf. App. Vol. II, pp. 52-56. McNeil accuses the

Hospital of medical malpractice based upon incorrect laboratory test results

which led to a misdiagnosis and which caused an erroneous report of child

abuse to be created. In her proposed complaint McNeil claims that the

1
McNeil notes that all parties named in the trial court are considered parties on appeal, see Ind. Appellate
Rule 17(A), but states that “this appeal is taken against one party – the Hospital” and that she “is not taking
issue with the trial court’s grant of summary judgment for the attending physician, the employer of the
attending physician, or anyone else other than the Hospital.” Appellants’ Br. pp. 4, n.1; 10, n.8. Citations to
the Appellees’ Brief will refer to the brief submitted by Anonymous Hospital.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CC-2209 | October 5, 2023 Page 2 of 34
 Hospital’s alleged malpractice was the proximate cause of the emotional

distress and other damages she and her children have suffered as a result of an

unsubstantiated child abuse investigation caused by the Hospital. Id. The

gravamen of the complaint is that the Hospital laboratory produced negligent,

inconclusive, and incorrect test results. McNeil requested that a Medical

Review Panel be convened to conduct a thorough inquiry.

[2] The Hospital sought an initial determination of law and asked the trial court to

enter summary judgment against McNeil as to all claims raised in the proposed

complaint. Id. at 20-21. The Hospital argued it enjoyed statutory immunity

from McNeil’s claims under Indiana Code § 31-33-6-1(a) (2018), which

generally grants qualified immunity to a person who makes or causes to be

made a report of child abuse or neglect (the “reporting statute”). McNeil

countered that under Indiana Code § 31-33-6-1(b) (2018), the immunity

provided under the reporting statute does not apply to a qualified health care

provider defending an action for medical malpractice. Appellants’ Br. p. 5.

[3] The trial court granted the Hospital’s Motion for Preliminary Determination

and Motion for Summary Judgment, and McNeil filed a motion to correct

error, which the court summarily denied. McNeil now appeals.

[4] We reverse and remand.

Question Presented
[5] This appeal presents a question of statutory interpretation. We are asked to

determine the meaning, operation, and effect of Indiana Code Section 31-33-6-
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CC-2209 | October 5, 2023 Page 3 of 34
 1(b) (“subsection (b)”), a provision which our legislature added to the child

abuse or neglect reporting statute in 2018. The specific question presented is

whether under the reporting statute, as amended by subsection (b), a qualified

health care provider who has not acted with gross negligence or willful or

wanton misconduct, retains immunity under Indiana Code Section 31-33-6-1(a)

from a medical malpractice action for making or causing to be made a report of

child abuse or neglect “even if the reported child abuse or neglect is classified by

the department [of child services] as unsubstantiated.” Indiana Code § 31-33-6-

1(a)(1)-(6). And a necessary corollary to this question is whether the holding in

Anonymous Hospital v. A.K., 920 N.E.2d 704 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) survived the

2018 amendment of the statute.

Standard of Review
[6] The parties agree that for the purpose of this appeal, there are no genuine issues

of material fact. As such, we are presented with a question of statutory

interpretation, which is a question of law reserved for the court and is reviewed

de novo. Vanderburgh Cnty Election Bd. v. Vanderburgh Cnty Democratic Cent.

Comm., 833 N.E.2d 508, 510 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). In this case, our review is de

novo for the additional reason that this is an appeal from the grant of a

summary judgment. See Young v. Hood’s Gardens, Inc., 24 N.E.3d 421, 423 (Ind.

2015). And where, as here, evidence accompanies a motion for preliminary

determination under Indiana Code Section 34-18-11-1 (1998), the motion is

subject to the same standard of appellate review as a summary judgment

motion. Haggerty v. Anonymous Party 1, 998 N.E.2d 286, 294 (Ind. Ct. App.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CC-2209 | October 5, 2023 Page 4 of 34
 2013). Finally, when appellate courts review questions of law under a de novo

standard, we owe no deference to a trial court’s legal conclusions. B P Amoco

Corp. v. Szymanski, 808 N.E.2d 683, 687 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied.

Discussion and Decision
[7] “The cardinal rule of statutory construction is to ascertain the intent of the

drafter by giving effect to the ordinary and plain meaning of the language

used.” T.W. Thom Const., Inc. v. City of Jeffersonville, 721 N.E.2d 319, 324 (Ind.

Ct. App. 1999). “Thus, we are not at liberty to construe a statute that is

unambiguous.” Id. “[W]e must give an unambiguous statute its clear and plain

meaning.” McCabe v. Comm’r, Ind. Dep’t of Ins., 949 N.E.2d 816, 819 (Ind.

2011). “When a statute is unambiguous, it is unnecessary to engage in statutory

construction in an effort to determine and give effect to legislative intent.” Id.

And under Indiana Code Section 1-1-4-1(1) (1991), “Words and phrases shall

be taken in their plain, or ordinary and usual, sense.”

[8] This is our first occasion to consider the child abuse or neglect reporting statute,

Indiana Code Section 31-33-6-1, since it was amended in 2018 by the addition

of subsection (b). The statute as amended in 2018 reads as follows:

(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) and section 2 of this
chapter, a person, other than a person accused of child abuse or
neglect, who:
(1) makes or causes to be made a report of a child who may be a
victim of child abuse or neglect;
(2) is a health care provider and detains a child for purposes of
causing photographs, x-rays, or a medical examination to be

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CC-2209 | October 5, 2023 Page 5 of 34
 made under IC 31-33-10;
(3) makes any other report of a child who may be a victim of
child abuse or neglect;
(4) participates in or assists with an investigation by the
department or a law enforcement agency resulting from a report
that a child may be a victim of child abuse or neglect, including
by transferring photographs, x-rays, or medical examination
records completed under subdivision (2);
(5) is a health care provider and provides professional
intervention resulting from a report that a child may be a victim
of child abuse or neglect, including:
(A) providing care or treatment to the child;
(B) participating in a case review concerning the child;
(C) providing advice or consultation concerning the child;
(D) disclosing medical records and other health information
concerning the child, in accordance with federal or state law
governing the disclosure of medical records;
(E) providing information to a child fatality review team; or
(F) recommending judicial action concerning a child; or
(6) participates, including testifying as a witness, in any judicial
proceeding or other proceeding:
(A) resulting from a report that a child may be a victim of child
abuse or neglect; or
(B) relating to the subject matter of the report;
is immune from any civil or criminal liability that might
otherwise be imposed because of such actions, even if the
reported child abuse or neglect is classified by the department as
unsubstantiated.

(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to an action brought against a
qualified health care provider for medical malpractice under IC
34-18-8.

[9] McNeil contends that subsection (b) is unambiguous. She notes that it is only

when a statute is ambiguous that a court resorts to construction or

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CC-2209 | October 5, 2023 Page 6 of 34
 interpretation, and that a statute is not ambiguous unless its words and phrases

when taken in their plain, or ordinary and usual, sense are susceptible to more

than one reasonable interpretation. Appellants’ Br. p. 12; see Indiana Code

Section §1-1-4-1(1); see also Mi.D. v. State, 57 N.E.3d 809, 813 (Ind. 2016)

(“Under well-established principles of statutory interpretation, a statute is

ambiguous when it allows more than one reasonable interpretation.”). McNeil

argues that “it is difficult to see how anyone can find ambiguity in § 31-33-6-

1(b)” or “be misled by the words ‘does not apply.’” Appellants’ Br. p. 13.

Thus, she concludes, “The [reporting] immunity defense simply ‘does not

apply’ to a malpractice lawsuit” and that to find ambiguity in the statute would

require that we read words into the statute that are not there. Id.

[10] Thus, McNeil contends that the reporting statute, as amended, does not bar a

medical malpractice claim where the examination, tests, or diagnosis

underlying the report support such a claim. Stated another way, McNeil

contends that while Indiana Code § 33-31-6-1(a) grants broad immunity for

reporting child abuse or neglect and for acts in furtherance of child abuse

investigations, § 33-31-6-1(b) makes clear that this broad immunity does not

include acts of medical malpractice. In addition, McNeil contends that an

action for malpractice leading to a report seeks civil liability for the malpractice,

not liability for an erroneous report and, thus, that, “[T]his appeal does not take

issue with the report of suspected child abuse in and of itself.” Appellants’ Br.

p. 10, n. 8.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CC-2209 | October 5, 2023 Page 7 of 34
[11] The Hospital counters that “The legislature’s amendment to Ind. Code 3-33-6-1

creates an ambiguity in the statute because it emasculates the legislative intent

expressed in the same statute and by this Court.” Appellees’ Br. p. 5. The

Hospital emphasizes that the legislature is presumed to have intended its

language to be applied in a logical manner consistent with the underlying goals

and policy of the statute. Id. at 5-6. And the Hospital contends that McNeil’s

argument would create the “illogical situation” of first providing broad

immunity in one subsection of the statute [subsection (a)], including immunity

for a negligent misdiagnosis leading to an unsubstantiated report of abuse or

neglect, and then removing that same immunity through another subsection of

the statute [subsection (b)]. Id. at 6.

[12] The Hospital asserts categorically that “The only logical construction of the

Indiana reporting statute is to give a healthcare provider immunity from any

acts leading to the creation of a report, including a negligent misdiagnosis,

unless those acts were grossly negligent or willful and wanton.” Id. at 18.

Stated another way, according to the Hospital, the Indiana immunity statute

“provides complete immunity for reporting but does not provide immunity or

change the method for claims regarding the doctor’s treatment of abuse victims

unrelated to the reporting.” Appellants’ Br. p. 5; Appellants’ App. Conf. Vol.

III, p. 196 (Hospital’s reply in support of motion for summary judgment). This

argument rests upon the Hospital’s premise that “the addition of subsection (b)

creates an ambiguity in the statute.” Appellees’ Br. p. 11.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CC-2209 | October 5, 2023 Page 8 of 34
 The Plain Meaning Rule
[13] “If the text of the statute is clear and unambiguous, it is not subject to judicial

interpretation and must be held to mean what it plainly says.” In re Estate of

Bricker, 212 N.E.3d 712, 714 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023). And “we may not add new

words to a statute which are not the expressed intent of the legislature.” Ramey

v. Ping, 190 N.E.3d 392, 403 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022), trans. denied. “However,

when the language is reasonably susceptible to more than one construction, we

must construe the statute to determine the apparent legislative intent.” Avco

Fin. Servs. of Indianapolis, Inc. v. Metro Holding Co., 563 N.E.2d 1323, 1328 (Ind.

Ct. App. 1990). “Statutory provisions cannot be read standing alone; instead,

they must be construed in light of the entire act of which they are a part.”

Deaton v. City of Greenwood, 582 N.E.2d 882, 885 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991). “When

construing a statute, we will presume the legislature intended the language of

the statute to be applied in a logical manner, consistent with its underlying goals

and policy.” Sightes v. Barker, 684 N.E.2d 224, 227 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997), trans.

denied.

[14] Thus, the parties dispute whether the plain meaning rule controls or whether

the statute, as amended by the addition of subsection (b), is ambiguous and

requires interpretation or construction. Resolution of that question is essential,

but not the only consideration in determining whether a qualified health care

provider is immune from a medical malpractice claim under subsection (a)

where negligence is alleged to have occurred in the examination, testing, or

diagnosis leading to the creation of a report of child abuse or neglect.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CC-2209 | October 5, 2023 Page 9 of 34
 Subsections (a) and (b) Can be Harmonized

[15] Both subsection (a) and subsection (b) concern the scope of immunity under the

statute. Subsection (a) grants broad immunity in child abuse or neglect

reporting, while subsection (b) declares an exception to that grant of immunity.

These subsections complement one another. One subsection is simply an

exception to the other subsection. Our Supreme Court has said that, “When

two statutes on the same subject must be construed together, a court should

attempt to give effect to both and must attempt to harmonize any

inconsistencies or conflicts before applying any other rule of statutory

construction.” Moryl v. Ransone, 4 N.E.3d 1133, 1137 (Ind. 2014).

“[P]aramount consideration must be given to the basic principle that two

statutes that apply to the same subject matter must be construed harmoniously,

if possible.” McCabe, 949 N.E.2d at 820. “This rule takes precedence over other

rules of statutory construction.” Id. And this rule also applies where, as here,

there are two subsections within the same statute covering the same subject.

State v. Universal Outdoor, Inc., 880 N.E.2d 1188, 1189-91 (Ind. 2008)

(harmonizing subsections (a) and (c) of Indiana Code section 32-24-1-11

regarding timing of exceptions to appraisers’ report in eminent domain

proceedings).

[16] We conclude that subsection (a) and subsection (b) can easily be harmonized

and reconciled. Clearly the legislature did not intend for the subsection (b)

exception to swallow the subsection (a) rule as the Hospital alleges when it

contends that the subsection (b) amendment “emasculates the legislative intent

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CC-2209 | October 5, 2023 Page 10 of 34
 expressed in the same statute and by this Court.” Appellees’ Br. p. 5. Rather, it

is apparent that the legislature determined that both reporting immunity under

subsection (a) and an action for medical malpractice allowed under subsection

(b) are mutually exclusive and can co-exist within the same statute.

[17] As our Supreme Court has explained, “If the two statutes can be read in

harmony with one another, we presume that the Legislature intended for them

both to have effect.” Klotz v. Hoyt, 900 N.E.2d 1, 5 (Ind. 2009) (internal

quotations omitted). “Statutes relating to the same general subject matter are in

pari materia [on the same subject] and should be construed together so as to

produce a harmonious statutory scheme.” Id. (internal quotations omitted).

We conclude that subsection (a) and subsection (b) are not irreconcilable and

can be harmonized.

[18] Subsection (b) declares that “Subsection (a) does not apply to an action brought

against a qualified health care provider for medical malpractice” and, as such,

carves out an unqualified exception to the immunity provisions of subsection

(a). In its operation and effect, subsection (b) simply means that the qualified

immunity provided under the reporting statute does not preclude an otherwise

cognizable medical malpractice claim arising out of the same facts, evidence,

and circumstances. Notwithstanding the qualified immunity provided under

the reporting statute, under subsection (b) both a qualified healthcare provider’s

contribution to a report of child abuse or neglect and the care and treatment of

an alleged child victim unrelated to the reporting are subject to the applicable

standard of medical care.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CC-2209 | October 5, 2023 Page 11 of 34
[19] Under subsection (a) of the reporting statute a person who makes or causes to

be made a report of suspected child abuse or neglect is immune from civil or

criminal liability, provided that the person has not acted with gross negligence

or willful or wanton misconduct. See Ind. Code §31-33-6-2 (2018). But under

subsection (b), on a proper set of facts, a qualified health care provider who

makes such a report or causes such a report to be made can be liable for medical

negligence.

[20] That is the plain meaning of subsection (b). Thus, we hold that the qualified

immunity provided under subsection (a) does not preclude a cause of action for

medical malpractice as provided under subsection (b) arising from the same

facts. In other words, where medical negligence causes or contributes to an

otherwise lawful report of suspected child abuse or neglect, the reporting statute

does not preclude a medical malpractice claim arising from the same facts,

evidence, and circumstances leading to the report. Subsection (a) and

subsection (b) can be harmonized and, thus, the reporting statute and the

Medical Malpractice Act are mutually exclusive. “Recognizing that a valid

interpretation exists so as to reconcile and harmonize both provisions in the

present case, we will – and must – give effect to both provisions.” Rodriguez v.

State, 129 N.E.3d 789, 796 (Ind. 2019).

Anonymous Hospital v. A.K.

[21] The next question is whether the subsection (b) amendment to the reporting

statute abrogates our opinion and compels us to depart from our holding in

Anonymous Hospital v. A.K., a case of first impression that was well-reasoned and
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CC-2209 | October 5, 2023 Page 12 of 34
 correctly decided before the 2018 amendments to the child abuse or neglect

reporting statute. In the instant case we must determine whether the 2018

subsection (b) amendment affects our holding in Anonymous Hospital that the

immunity provided “pursuant to Ind. Code §31-33-6-1 includes immunity not

only for the report to authorities of the suspected abuse . . . but also for the

underlying examination, tests, and diagnosis that triggered such report.” 920

N.E.2d at 710.

[22] In Anonymous Hospital v. A.K, parents brought a medical malpractice action

alleging that the hospital had failed to confirm the accuracy of laboratory test

results, which caused the hospital to make an erroneous report of possible child

abuse or neglect and nullified the hospital’s statutory immunity. In interpreting

the language then contained in subsection (a), we rejected the medical

malpractice claim. We reasoned that, “the examination, testing and diagnosis

of the child are inextricably linked with the making of the report because

without the examination, testing and diagnosis, there would be no report.” Id.

at 708-09. And we held that under subsection (a), the hospital was afforded

immunity from a medical malpractice action “for the good faith reporting of

suspected child abuse, as required by statute, and . . . that such immunity

extends to the underlying diagnosis. . . .” Id. at 711.

[23] The Hospital now contends our opinion in that case is controlling and “should

not be overruled.” Appellees’ Br. p. 6. In Anonymous Hospital v. A.K., we

addressed the essential elements of a child abuse report as follows:

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CC-2209 | October 5, 2023 Page 13 of 34
 Upon review of the statute’s plain language, it is clear that the
statute provides immunity for any individual making a report, as
well as for any individual participating in any actions that cause
the report to be made. The phrase “causes to be made” in the
statute necessarily includes the examination, testing and
diagnosis of the child by health care providers. The results of the
initial examination and testing are what produce the diagnosis
that then causes the report of suspected abuse to be made to the
authorities. Thus, the examination, testing and diagnosis of the child
are inextricably linked with the making of the report because without the
examination, testing and diagnosis, there would be no report.

920 N.E.2d 708-09 (emphasis added).

[24] And we held that:

the immunity provided to Hospital pursuant to Ind. Code § 31-
33-6-1 includes immunity not only for the report to authorities of
the suspected abuse of [the child] but also for the underlying
examination, tests, and diagnosis that triggered such report. In so
holding, we join the ranks of several courts across the country
that have determined that statutory immunity applies not only to
the report of suspected child abuse, but also to the underlying
diagnosis.

Id. at 710 (emphasis added).

[25] In sum, we held that the precursors, which lead to the creation of a report, are

not severable from the report itself and that both enjoy statutory reporting

immunity.

[26] Anonymous Hospital was decided in 2010, and our legislature added subsection

(b) to the reporting statute in 2018. For that eight-year period, immunity under

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CC-2209 | October 5, 2023 Page 14 of 34
 the reporting statute included immunity “not only for the report to authorities

of suspected abuse . . . but also for the underlying examination, tests, and

diagnosis” which predicated the report and which we concluded “are

inextricably linked” to the report and without which “there would be no

report.” Id. at 708, 710. “The legislature is presumed to have had in mind the

history of the statute and the decisions of the courts upon the subject matter of

the legislation being construed.” Sightes, 684 N.E.2d at 227; also see, Holmes v.

Jones, 719 N.E.2d 843, 848 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999); Ind. State Bd. of Health v.

Journal Gazette Co., 608 N.E.2d 989, 993 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993). This rule was

followed by our Supreme Court as early as 1937 in Stith Petroleum Co. v. Dep’t. of

Audit & Control of Indiana, 211 Ind. 400, 5 N.E.2d 517 (1937), in which the

plaintiff challenged the State’s regulation of petroleum products. In that case,

our Supreme Court said that, “[a]t the time of the enactment of [the challenged

legislation], the Legislature is presumed to have had before it and to have had in

mind the history and decisions of the courts upon that subject.” Id. at 519.

[27] Thus, we must presume that when the legislature enacted subsection (b) it was

aware of our opinion in Anonymous Hospital v. A.K. that statutory reporting

immunity includes not only immunity for making or causing a report to be

made but also for the precursors essential to the report – the underlying

examination, testing, and diagnosis incorporated in the report and, as we said

in Anonymous Hospital v. A.K., without which “there would be no report.” 920

N.E.2d at 709. In other words, we must assume that the legislature enacted

subsection (b) in contemplation of existing case law.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CC-2209 | October 5, 2023 Page 15 of 34
[28] Indiana does not recognize audio or video coverage of legislative activities as

evidence of legislative intent. Ind. Code § 2-5-1.1-15 (2002). Nevertheless,

before the trial court the Hospital argued that its interpretation was supported

by legislative history, cited video recordings of three legislative hearings, and

quoted an author of Senate Bill 431. Appellants’ Conf. App. III, pp. 196-198.

Anticipating that the Hospital would repeat its legislative history argument on

appeal (which it did not), McNeil states preemptively that our legislature has

disapproved of such “legislative archeology” and that we are prohibited from

considering audio or video coverage of legislative deliberations or statements

made by individual legislators as evidence of legislative intent. Appellants’ Br.

p. 12. We agree.

[29] We also recognize that when voting on Senate Bill 431 some legislators may

have believed and even expressed an opinion that the subsection (b) exception

to statutory reporting immunity would not disturb the status quo and would

apply only to an action for medical malpractice unrelated to the reporting. But our

Supreme Court has said that, “[i]n interpreting statutes, we do not impute the

opinions of one legislator, even a bill’s sponsor, to the entire legislature unless

those views find statutory expression.” Utility Center, Inc. v. City of Ft. Wayne,

868 N.E.2d 453, 459 (Ind. 2007) (quoting A Woman’s Choice–East Side Women’s

Clinic v. Newman, 671 N.E.2d 104, 110 (Ind. 1996)). In Utility Center, the trial

court, the Court of Appeals, and our Supreme Court all declined to consider the

author’s intent as expressed in his affidavit, and the Supreme Court stated it

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CC-2209 | October 5, 2023 Page 16 of 34
 was unable to conclude that the author’s intent [to restrict the eminent domain

powers of a municipal utility] was enacted into law. Id.

[30] While resort to legislative history is out of bounds, we can consider statutory

history. See Alldredge v. Good Samaritan Home, Inc., 9 N.E. 3d 1257 (Ind. 2014)

(reciting the history of legislation concerning the fraudulent concealment

doctrine). The statutory history of Senate Bill 431 tracks the bill and its

iterations during the 2018 legislative session from its first reading through its

enactment. See Indiana General Assembly Website,

https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2018/bills/senate/431/details. This “paper

trail” demonstrates that subsection (b) was not included in Senate Bill 431 when

it was introduced and referred to the Senate Civil Law Committee and that the

Committee did not vote on the Bill at the first meeting when it was considered.

At the next meeting, after a Proposed Amendment (SB 431 #5) including

subsection (b) was added to the bill, the Committee approved Senate Bill 431,

as amended, and reported the bill favorably with a “Do Pass” recommendation
2
to the Senate, and the bill was ultimately enacted. This statutory history

2
The Digest of the amendment approved by the Civil Law Committee, the Synopsis of the bill as it passed
through the Senate and the House of Representatives, and the Digest of the Bill as enacted state that the bill
“Provides that the immunity provisions do not apply to actions brought against qualified healthcare providers
for medical malpractice.” However, the Synopsis and Digests are not part of the bill any more than a West
synopsis or headnotes are part of an appellate opinion, and we have not relied upon them in this opinion.
We note that the House also adopted and the Senate concurred in a different amendment to Senate Bill 431
(SB 431 #6) which is immaterial to our discussion.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CC-2209 | October 5, 2023 Page 17 of 34
 indicates that the subsection (b) amendment to Senate Bill 431 was an overt and

deliberate action taken by our legislature.

[31] In a case of statutory construction remarkably similar on its facts, Dept. of Public

Welfare of Allen Cnty v. Potthoff, 220 Ind. 574, 44 N.E.2d 494, 498 (1942), our

Supreme Court invoked “the history of the statute” when it decided whether the

legislature had intended for the statute to preserve or cancel existing old age

assistance liens. In Potthoff, the statutory history disclosed that after a Senate

committee had recommended amendments which would have preserved

existing liens, the Senate rejected the amendments, and the bill was restored to

the form in which it had passed the House and was enacted. Id. Our Supreme

concluded that, “On the record both houses were charged with knowledge of

the effect of the bill” which “indicated quite conclusively that the General

Assembly had before it, considered and rejected” the proposed Senate

amendments. Id. Here, in a mirror image, the amendments were not rejected

but approved. The Senate Civil Law Committee recommended amendments to

Senate Bill 431, including subsection (b), which were included in the final bill

passed by both the Senate and the House. Here, just as in Potthoff, “both houses

were charged with knowledge of the effect of the bill.” Id.

[32] But that does not end our inquiry. The question remains whether the

legislature intended to abrogate our opinion in Anonymous Hospital v. A.K. or

intended for our opinion to remain intact notwithstanding the enactment of

subsection (b). Our Supreme Court has provided a rule to be applied and guide

us under these circumstances:

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CC-2209 | October 5, 2023 Page 18 of 34
 First, there is a presumption that when the legislature enacts a
statute, it is aware of the common law and does not intend to
make a change unless it expressly or unmistakably implies that the
common law no longer controls.

Daniels v. Fanduel, Inc., 109 N.E.3d 390, 394-95 (Ind. 2018) (emphasis added).

[33] Here, we are asked to address a different statute, an amended statute that

concerns the very question we decided in Anonymous Hospital v. A.K. where we

held that the Medical Malpractice Act did not apply to a child abuse report or

its precursors (examination, testing, and diagnosis) “inextricably linked” to it.

920 N.E.2d at 709. But the current statute categorically states the opposite, that

statutory child abuse or neglect reporting immunity under subsection (a) “does

not apply” to an action brought against a qualified health care provider for

medical malpractice. Indiana Code § 31-33-6-1(b).

[34] The Hospital asks that we construe subsection (b) beyond its plain meaning to

accommodate the Hospital’s theory that, as this Court concluded in Anonymous

Hospital v. A.K., “the examination, testing and diagnosis of the [putative] child

[victim] are inextricably linked with the making of the report because without

the examination, testing and diagnosis, there would be no report.” 920 N.E.2d

at 708-09. The theory advanced by the Hospital is that Anonymous Hospital v.

A.K. survived the enactment of subsection (b) intact even though subsection (b)

contains an unequivocal exception to subsection (a). To accept the Hospital’s

theory would require that we entirely ignore the 2018 amendments, which

added subsection (b). The Hospital’s theory finds no expression in the statute.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CC-2209 | October 5, 2023 Page 19 of 34
 It is readily apparent that we would not give full force and effect to the plain

meaning of subsection (b) if we were to engraft our holding in Anonymous

Hospital v. A.K. onto the statute, as amended, which we cannot do. We must

adhere to the plain logic and text of the statute which declares a specific

contrary intent and which “unmistakably implies” that our holding in that case

no longer controls. See Daniels, 109 N.E.3d at 395. Subsection (b) is an

unambiguous, simple, declarative sentence which is not susceptible to more

than one reasonable interpretation.

[35] Thus, we hold that Senate Bill 431 abrogated our holding in Anonymous Hospital

v. A.K. Under subsection (a) of the reporting statute, as amended, where the

person creating the report has not acted with gross negligence or willful or

wanton misconduct, the act of making or causing a report to be made is

immunized. And under subsection (b) of the reporting statute, as amended, the

same underlying facts may nevertheless support an action for medical

malpractice, which is not immunized, and such an action would be an action

for the underlying medical negligence, not an action for creation of the report.

The Hospital’s Contentions
[36] As we have noted, the Hospital contends that the subsection (b) amendment

creates an ambiguity in the reporting statute. We have determined, however,

that subsection (b) means what it says and requires no interpretation or

construction, that there is no ambiguity in the text, grammar, or structure of

subsection (b), whether standing alone or in relation to subsection (a), and that

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CC-2209 | October 5, 2023 Page 20 of 34
 subsection (b) abrogated our holding in Anonymous Hospital v. A.K.

Nevertheless, we will address the Hospital’s arguments that subsection (b) is

inconsistent with subsection (a) and that the addition of subsection (b) leads to

various “illogical” and ambiguous outcomes.

[37] The Hospital makes at least four distinct contentions: (1) “it would be illogical

to construe subsection (b) to emasculate the legislative intent expressed in

subsection (a);” (2) subsection (b) is inconsistent with subsection (a) because it

applies only to qualified health care providers rather than to all health care

providers; (3) courts in other jurisdictions with similar statutes have held that

their statutes provide absolute immunity for child abuse and neglect reporting

but not for malpractice unrelated to the reporting; and (4) federal law requires

absolute immunity for good faith reporting. Appellees’ Br. pp. 12-17. We will

consider each contention in turn.

First Contention: It Would be “Illogical” for Subsection (b) to Defeat the
Legislative Intent Expressed in Subsection (a)

[38] The Hospital first asserts that “it would be illogical to construe subsection (b) to

emasculate the legislative intent expressed in subsection (a).” Id. at 12.

Specifically, the Hospital continues, it would be illogical to provide broad

immunity under subsection (a), “including immunity for a negligent

misdiagnosis leading to an unsubstantiated report of child abuse or neglect,”

and then to “remove that immunity” by the addition of subsection (b) of the

same statute. Id. The Hospital notes correctly that the legislature is presumed

to have intended its language to be applied in a logical manner consistent with

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CC-2209 | October 5, 2023 Page 21 of 34
 the underlying goals and policy of a statute. See Sightes, 684 N.E.2d at 227.

Thus, the Hospital reasons this presumption means that subsection (b) must

apply only to medical malpractice claims unrelated to the reporting.

[39] The Hospital contends that the subsection (b) exception to subsection (a) does

not apply to acts leading up to the filing of a report of abuse or neglect, even if

the report was caused by a misdiagnosis, and applies only to acts of medical

malpractice occurring subsequent to the creation of the report or otherwise

unrelated to the reporting. But the amended statute does not make that

distinction, and there is nothing in the plain text of subsection (b) to support this

theory. As we have already noted, ‘“[a] statute that is clear and unambiguous

must be read to mean what it plainly expresses, and its plain and obvious

meaning may not be enlarged or restricted.”’ IABR, Inc. v. Alcohol and Tobacco

Comm’n, 945 N.E.2d 187, 197 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (quoting Ind. Mun. Power

Agency v. Town of Edinburgh, 769 N.E.2d 222, 226 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002)), trans.

denied. And, again, we may not engraft new words into the statute at will. State

ex rel. Monchecourt v. Vigo Circuit Court, 240 Ind. 168, 172, 162 N.E.2d 614, 616

(1959).

[40] We must assume that the legislature means what it says and that the legislature

“chose the language it did for a reason.” State v. Prater, 922 N.E.2d 746, 750

(Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans. denied. Subsection (a) begins with the words “except

as provided in subsection (b), and subsection (b) begins with the words,

“Subsection (a) does not apply.” Ind. Code § 31-33-6-1(a), (b). The

relationship between subsection (a) and subsection (b) is unambiguous. These

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CC-2209 | October 5, 2023 Page 22 of 34
 two subsections are reciprocal. Subsection (a) refers to subsection (b), and

subsection (b) refers to subsection (a). And we may not substitute another

meaning merely because the statute as written is alleged to yield unintended

consequences.

[41] The Hospital continues that if subsection (b) were construed to allow medical

malpractice claims in connection with reports generated under subsection (a), it

would defeat the legislative purpose of the reporting statute, which is to

encourage effective child abuse or neglect reporting and even to err on the side

of over reporting. C.S. v. State, 8 N.E.3d 668, 683 (Ind. 2014) (the statutory

scheme is designed, if anything, to err on the side of over reporting suspected

child abuse or neglect). Indeed, under subsection (a), which provides statutory

reporting immunity, “the General Assembly has protected those who report

and are mistaken. . . .” Id. However, support for this policy argument cannot

be found within the plain text of subsection (b), which carves out an exception

for medical malpractice in a simple declarative sentence.

[42] We conclude that subsection (b) is not “illogical” simply because it removes

medical malpractice claims from the scope of subsection (a). These two

subsections are not incompatible and can co-exist. By its very terms, the

immunity under subsection (a) is qualified by two exceptions. Under

subsection (b) an action under the Medical Malpractice Act, Indiana Code

Section 34-18-8, is permitted where the facts underlying the report, if

established, would support a medical malpractice claim. Likewise, under

Indiana Code Section 31-33-6-2 (“Section 2"), a civil action for damages is

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CC-2209 | October 5, 2023 Page 23 of 34
 permitted where the person making the report has acted with gross negligence
3
or willful or wanton misconduct.

[43] Subsection (b) is inconsistent with subsection (a) precisely because an exception

is, by definition, inconsistent with the general rule that precedes it. The fact

that subsection (b) deviates from the immunity provided under subsection (a)

does not render the reporting statute illogical or ambiguous and subject to more

than one reasonable interpretation. Subsection (b) means that the child abuse

or neglect reporting statute and the Medical Malpractice Act are mutually

exclusive and that the reporting statute does not preempt or preclude an

otherwise valid medical malpractice claim. Qualified statutory immunity from

civil liability attaches to a health care provider’s report of possible child abuse or

neglect where the reporter has acted without gross negligence or willful or

wanton misconduct, but under subsection (b), the immunity provisions for child

abuse or neglect reporting under subsection (a) do not preclude an action under

the Medical Malpractice Act. We conclude that the subsection (b) exception is

not illogical and does not create an ambiguity in the reporting statute.

3
We note that when Senate Bill 431 added subsection (b) to the reporting statute, the Bill also amended
Section 2, replacing the words “who has acted maliciously or in bad faith” with the words “who has acted
with (1) gross negligence; or (2) willful or wanton misconduct.”

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CC-2209 | October 5, 2023 Page 24 of 34
 Second Contention: The Statute as Amended is Illogical Because Subsection
(b) Applies Only to Qualified Health Care Providers

[44] The Hospital maintains that the reporting statute provides immunity for all

Indiana health care providers. Thus, the Hospital contends that subsection (b)

is illogical and creates an ambiguity in the reporting statute because it applies

only to “qualified health care providers” and refers only to an action for

medical malpractice under Indiana Code Chapter 34-18-8 (1998), although not

every health care provider is qualified or covered by Indiana Code Section 34-

18-3-1 (1998). The Hospital asserts that this “creates a great divide between

qualified health care providers and other healthcare providers when dealing

with” the reporting statute. Appellants’ Conf. App. Vol. III, p. 195. And the

Hospital notes correctly that the remedy of an aggrieved patient against a health

care provider who is not qualified under the Act is an ordinary civil action.

Thus, the Hospital observes that subsection (b) retains reporting immunity for

health care providers who are not qualified under the Act but weakens

immunity for qualified health care providers and that the legislature could not

have intended such an illogical result, reasoning that “those with equal

responsibilities should receive the same immunity protection.” Id.

[45] The Hospital has identified an apparent disparity in the treatment of qualified

health care providers and health care providers under the reporting statute, as

amended, but this circumstance provides no support for the Hospital’s

contention that such disparate treatment creates an ambiguity in the statute.

Our determination that subsection (b) does not create an ambiguity in the

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CC-2209 | October 5, 2023 Page 25 of 34
 statute is unaffected by whether or not subsection (b) results in disparate

treatment between qualified health care providers and other health care

providers with respect to the immunity afforded under the statute. This is not

an ambiguity. We cannot declare the statute is “illogical” and subject to more

than one reasonable interpretation simply because the legislature could have

written a different statute without making any such distinction. Even if we

were to question this disparity, it would not be our prerogative to second guess

a policy decision made by our legislature and disregard the statute as written.

“[S]tatutory revision is beyond our authority.” Indiana Right to Life Victory Fund

and Sarkes Tarzian, Inc. v. Diego Morales, et al., No. 23S-CQ-108, slip op. at *11

(Ind. September 25, 2023). Of course, if the legislature desires a different result,

it may revisit and amend the statute.

Third Contention: Other States Have Recognized Immunity for Acts Leading
to the Making of a Report and Medical Malpractice

[46] The Hospital urges that we adopt the approach taken by other states that “have

mandatory reporting statutes similar to Indiana which provide immunity for

acts leading to the making of a report while, at the same time providing no

immunity for medical malpractice.” Appellees’ Br. p. 13. The Hospital

maintains that we should resolve the alleged ambiguity in Indiana’s reporting

statute by modeling our interpretation of the statute after opinions in other

states, in particular Michigan and Tennessee, which “have drawn the line

between acts related to the report itself,” which have immunity, and “acts

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CC-2209 | October 5, 2023 Page 26 of 34
 related to treatment of the child causing direct injury,” which may be subject to

a medical malpractice claim. Id. at 15.

[47] While the statutes from other states cited by the Hospital may be similar to

Indiana’s, they also differ on the dispositive issue, namely, the extent to which

the relevant provisions differentiate between the immunity provided for

mandatory child abuse or neglect reporting and liability for medical malpractice

claims. The flaw in the Hospital’s argument is simply that there is a substantial

and material difference between those statutes and Indiana’s statute. Most

importantly, our legislature has already “drawn the line,” and it is not our

prerogative to draw a different line.

The Michigan and Tennessee Statutes

[48] The Michigan reporting statute provides, in relevant part, that:

A person acting in good faith who makes a report [of child abuse
or neglect] or assists in any other requirement of this act shall be
immune from civil or criminal liability which might otherwise be
incurred thereby. A person making a report or assisting in any
other requirement of this act shall be presumed to have acted in
good faith. This immunity from civil or criminal liability extends only
to acts done pursuant to this act and does not extend to a negligent act
which causes personal injury or death or the malpractice of a physician
which results in personal injury or death.

Mich. Comp. Laws §722.625 (2022) (emphasis added).

[49] In Awkerman v. Tri-County Orthopedic Group, P.C., 373 N.W.2d 204, 206 (Mich.

Ct. App. 1985), the Michigan Court of Appeals rejected the parents’ contention

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CC-2209 | October 5, 2023 Page 27 of 34
 that Michigan’s child abuse reporting statute “does not preclude recovery of

damages for filing an erroneous child abuse report if that filing was the result of

the malpractice of the defendant.” The Court held that the Michigan statute

“clearly and unambiguously provides immunity to persons who file a child

abuse report in good faith.” Id. And the Court continued:

the reports were filed due to an allegedly negligent diagnosis . . .
Such an allegation cannot, as a matter of law, successfully avoid
the immunity provided by the child abuse reporting statute.

Id. And in also rejecting the parents’ claim for consequential damages, the court

concluded that “the statute was not intended to apply to personal injuries

resulting from the filing of an erroneous report, but rather to injuries which result

directly from the malpractice.” Id.

[50] The Michigan statute addressed in Awkerman contains an explicit dichotomy.

First, the statute describes the immunity from liability included, that the

immunity “extends only to acts done pursuant to this act,” and then describes

the immunity excluded, “a negligent act which causes personal injury or death

or to the malpractice of a physician which results in personal injury or death.”

Mich. Comp. Laws §722.625. There is no such distinction, express or implied,

in the Indiana statute. When read together, subsection (a) and subsection (b) of

the Indiana reporting statute provide that the immunity granted under

subsection (a) of the statute does not include claims which may be brought

under the Medical Malpractice Act.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CC-2209 | October 5, 2023 Page 28 of 34
[51] The Hospital contends that we should apply the Michigan court’s reasoning to

the Indiana statute given that in Anonymous Hospital v. A.K. we cited Awkerman

with approval. See 920 N.E.2d at 710. But, here, we are presented with a

different statute, which contains a medical malpractice exception and does not

make the distinction clearly expressed in the Michigan statute.

[52] The Hospital next relies upon Bryant-Bruce v. Vanderbilt University Inc., 974 F.

Supp. 1127 (M.D. Tenn. 1997), a federal court opinion applying the Tennessee

reporting statute to an action for damages arising from reports of suspected

child abuse. The Tennessee statute contains the following explicit exception to

immunity for health care providers:

Nothing in this subsection (a) [granting report of harm immunity
to health care providers] shall be construed to confer any
immunity upon a health care provider for a criminal or civil
action arising out of the treatment of the child about whom the report of
harm was made.

Tenn. Code Ann. § 37-1-410(a)(4) (2010) (emphasis added). This provision is

analogous but not equivalent to subsection (b) in Indiana’s reporting statute.

[53] The Bryant-Bruce court first described in general terms the nature and extent of

statutory reporting immunity under the Tennessee statute. Citing a Tennessee

state court opinion, the federal court recited the general rule under the

Tennessee statute that, “a physician receives protection from diagnosing,

reporting, and testifying regarding suspected abuse,” but that “a physician is not

immune for those actions unrelated to a physician’s duty to report child abuse.”

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CC-2209 | October 5, 2023 Page 29 of 34
 1127 F. Supp. at 1141. The court then addressed the same dichotomy under

Tennessee law which the Hospital contends applies in Indiana, the distinction

between actions of health care providers “arising from the reporting of child

abuse,” which are protected, and claims arising “under a theory of malpractice

or negligence, rather than from reporting a medical condition based on

suspected child abuse,” which may be actionable. Id. In other words, the court

explained, immunity does not extend to “other improper actions taken beyond

the reporting requirement,” and the Tennessee reporting statute provides

immunity for physicians “only to the extent that their conduct arises from their

duty to report suspicions of child abuse. . . .” Id.

[54] The federal court granted the Vanderbilt Defendants’ motion for partial

summary judgment “for the actions taken in compliance with Defendants’ duty

to report suspicions of child abuse under [the Tennessee reporting statute] . . . .

974 F. Supp. at 1148. And the court denied the Defendants’ motion “to the

extent that Defendants’ actions were not taken pursuant to said legal duty or

may have exceeded such duty. . . .” Id. The court then allowed the

professional negligence count, the medical malpractice count of the plaintiffs’

complaint, to go forward for trial on disputed facts.

[55] Here, the Hospital argues that, notwithstanding the enactment of subsection (b),

we should embrace the Bryant-Bruce analysis and continue to differentiate

between statutory reporting immunity for the conduct of health care providers

when creating the report and liability for conduct unrelated to the reporting.

But by its terms the Tennessee health care provider exemption from reporting

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CC-2209 | October 5, 2023 Page 30 of 34
 immunity applies only to “a criminal or civil action arising out of the treatment

of the child about whom the report of harm was made.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 37-

1-410(a)(4) (emphasis added). In contrast, the Indiana subsection (b) medical

malpractice exemption from reporting immunity is not limited to “the treatment

of the child.” Subsection (b) is unqualified. It does not differentiate between

creation of the report or the care, treatment, or other professional health care

services rendered to the putative child victim unrelated to the reporting.

[56] Under subsection (b), there is no immunity for medical malpractice whether a

qualified health care provider makes or causes a negligent report to be made, or

renders care, treatment, or other professional services to the child. A qualified

health care provider, who is subject to the Medical Malpractice Act, is subject

to the same standard of care and potential liability as might otherwise be

imposed upon them in another context, whether the claim is that the provider

made or caused to be made a negligent report or that the provider was negligent

when providing “professional intervention” under any of the categories
4
enumerated under Indiana Code Section 31-33-6-1(a)(5).

4
Section 31-33-6-1(a)(5) was also added to Senate Bill 431 and reads as follows:
(5) is a health care provider and provides professional intervention resulting from a report that a
child may be a victim of child abuse or neglect, including:
(A) providing care or treatment to the child;
(B) participating in a case review concerning the child;
(C) providing advice or consultation concerning the child;
(D) disclosing medical records and other health information concerning the child, in accordance
with federal or state law governing the disclosure of medical records;

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CC-2209 | October 5, 2023 Page 31 of 34
[57] We conclude that the Michigan and Tennessee statutes differ significantly from

the Indiana statute and are not helpful in understanding the Indiana statute.

The Indiana statute, including subsections (a) and (b), does not make the

distinctions which appear in the Michigan and Tennessee statutes. The

immunity provided in the Indiana reporting statute was not intended to shield a

qualified health care provider from an action for medical malpractice that

would otherwise apply on the same facts in any other context.

[58] Subsection (b) means that Indiana’s abuse or neglect reporting statute does not

preempt the Medical Malpractice Act, and, again, in that respect, subsection (b)

supersedes our opinion in Anonymous Hospital v. A.K. Subsection (b) simply

means that there can be liability for medical negligence arising from creation of

an abuse or neglect report as well as the subsequent “professional intervention

resulting from a report,” including but not limited to “care or treatment to the

child” who may be a victim of child abuse or neglect. See Indiana Code Section

31-33-6-1(a)(5)(A)-(F).

Fourth Contention: Federal Law Allows for Only One Reasonable Statutory
Interpretation

[59] Finally, the Hospital contends that immunity for all acts leading to the making

of a child abuse or neglect report is necessary to comply with federal law under

the Federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, 42 U.S.C. §5101-5106,

(E) providing information to a child fatality review team; or
(F) recommending judicial action concerning a child; or

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CC-2209 | October 5, 2023 Page 32 of 34
 enacted in 1974. The Hospital cites a 1983 Alabama Supreme Court opinion,

Harris v. City of Montgomery, 435 So.2d 1207, 1213 (Ala. 1983), which states that

“Section 5103(b)(2) expressly provides that states must grant the required

immunity for mandatory reporting and permissive reporting of known or

suspected child abuse or neglect in order to qualify for assistance.” Appellees’

Br. p. 17. However, 42 U.S.C. § 5103, cited in the 1983 Alabama Supreme

Court opinion, was repealed in 1996. In addition, the Alabama case would not

otherwise be on point given that the court cited the federal statute only to reject

a state constitutional challenge to that state’s Child Abuse and Reporting Act.

[60] The Hospital asserts that it is “illogical for the Indiana legislature to pass a

mandatory reporting statute in order to qualify for federal financial assistance

and then remove that immunity in a subsequent subsection of the same

statute.” Appellees’ Br. p. 18. But subsection (b) does not “remove” the broad

grant of statutory immunity under subsection (a). Rather, it creates an

exception for medical malpractice, an exception which simply requires that

when participating in child abuse or neglect reporting, a qualified health care

provider must observe the same standard of care as they would otherwise

observe.

[61] Whether Indiana is in compliance with federal law is not a question presented

in this appeal, and we decline to offer a gratuitous opinion on whether the

Indiana statute complies with the current federal statute. See 42 U.S.C. § 5106a

(concerning federal grants to states for child abuse or neglect prevention and

treatment programs). Even if, for the sake of argument, Indiana’s reporting

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CC-2209 | October 5, 2023 Page 33 of 34
 statute were deemed not to comply with federal grant conditions, that

determination would not alter the intent of the legislature as disclosed by the

text of the statute. The Hospital confuses “legislative intent” with “legislative

result.” See State ex rel. Bynum v. LaPorte Superior Court No. 1, 259 Ind. 647, 650,

291 N.E.2d 355, 356 (Ind. 1973) (legislative intent and legislative result “are not

always one and the same thing.”). The legislative intent and the statute’s

meaning would remain intact notwithstanding any possible unforeseen or

unintended side effects. See id. (“Once having determined such intent . . . . we

are no more at liberty to adopt a construction that will not give effect to such

intent . . . notwithstanding that . . . we perceive undesirable side effects

apparently not envisioned at the time of passage.”).

Conclusion
[62] We conclude that subsection (b) represents a deliberate legislative policy

determination that notwithstanding the reporting immunity provided under

subsection (a), the standard of care for qualified healthcare providers under the

Medical Malpractice Act applies to child abuse reporting. Thus, we reverse the

trial court’s grant of summary judgment for the Hospital, direct the trial court to

deny the Hospital’s motion for summary judgment, and remand for further

proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

[63] Reversed and remanded.

Bailey, J., and Crone, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CC-2209 | October 5, 2023 Page 34 of 34