With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". review panel, must be met." Id. A more reasonable reading of Indiana Code section 34-18-2-22 is that the Medical Malpractice Act "folds" the common law non-pecuniary derivative claims into the Medical Malpractice Act's administrative requirements and award caps. Thus, if a common law non-pecuniary derivative claim is brought by a "parent or parents, guardian, trustee, child, relative, attorney, or any other representative" of an injured patient that still lives, the plaintiff must adhere to the Medical Malpractice Act's procedures and cannot immediately bring a claim in court. I.C. § 34-18-2-22. Moreover, at common law, no cause of action could be brought for non-pecuniary damages after the injured spouse-or "patient"-died. Bemenderfer v. Williams, 745 N.E.2d 212, 219 (Ind.2001) (<HOLDING>). Thus, but for the Wrongful Death Act, claims

A: holding that wifes recovery for loss of consortium should not be reduced by the proportion of negligence attributable to husband because claim for loss of consortium is independent of the damages claim of the injured spouse
B: recognizing that loss of consortium is a right of action separate from that of the spouse
C: holding that absent an actionable injury to one spouse the other spouse cannot recover for loss of consortium
D: holding that common law rule was that consortium damages were not recoverable after in jured spouse died
D.