his death. See Marks v. Gaskill, 546 N.E.2d 1245, 1249 (Ind.Ct.App.1989) (noting the rule that juries may consider pain and suffering and mental anguish), aff'd 563 N.E.2d 1284; see also Crawford v. Wells, 168 Ind.App. 615, 618, 344 N.E.2d 869, 871 (1976); Chicago & Calumet Dist. Transit Co. v. Stravatzakes, 129 Ind.App. 337, 354, 156 N.E.2d 902, 910 (1959). Therefore, such damages may be sought by Wife as his personal representative through operation of the statute providing for survival of actions after death, I.C. § 34 — 1—1—l. In addition, Wife may recover, in her own capacity, for loss of consortium resulting from the negligence of the defendant doctors in an action independent from the wrongful death claim. Warrick Hospital, Inc. v. Wallace, 435 N.E.2d 263, 269, (Ind.Ct.App.1982) (<HOLDING>), overruled on other grounds, Community
recognizing that loss of consortium is a right of action separate from that of the spouse holding that a loss of consortium is separate and independent from the primary action recognizing cause of action for wrongful death holding that widow had individual action for loss of her husbands consortium between onset of his illness and death separate from that available under wrongful death statute holding that plaintiffs failure to prove decedents death was caused by the wrongful acts of the defendant precludes any recovery of wrongful death damages under mississippis wrongful death statute