ILNews

Court upholds judgment for doctor, health care center

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A woman who challenged the grant of summary judgment on her negligence claims in favor of the doctor who performed her breast reduction surgery and the heath care center where it was performed lost her appeal before the Indiana Court of Appeals.

Ivelisse Martinez challenged the grant of summary judgment to Dr. Jung Park and St. Margaret Mercy Healthcare Center on her claim for medical negligence against Park and her negligent credentialing claim against St. Margaret. Park performed bilateral breast reduction surgery on Martinez in 2000. He is board certified as an otolaryngologist and a cosmetic surgeon, and she knew him because he was her daughter’s ear, nose and throat doctor.

After the surgery, Martinez was displeased with the results and filed a proposed complaint against Park and St. Margaret. The medical review panel found Park “failed to comply with the appropriate standard of care as charged in the complaint as it relates to the lack of appropriate recognized post-graduate training and residency in plastic and reconstructive surgery,” and the health care center “failed to comply with the appropriate standard of care as charged in the complaint by granting hospital privileges to a physician who lacked appropriate recognized post-graduate training and residency in plastic and reconstructive surgery.”

Martinez filed a medical malpractice complaint; only her negligence claims are at issue on appeal.

Her complaint raised an issue with regard to the manner in which Park performed the surgery, and Park argued that he didn’t breach the standard of care in which he performed the surgery or provided pre- and post-operative care. The medical review panel opinion and Martinez’s expert affidavit only addressed the fact of the surgery; neither addressed the manner in which he actually performed the surgery itself.

In Ivelisse Martinez v. Jung I. Park, M.D., and St. Margaret Mercy Healthcare Centers, Inc., No. 45A05-1012-CT-799, the appellate court found Martinez failed to come forth with any evidence to rebut Park’s expert opinion that his medical treatment of Martinez met the applicable standard of care. And for Martinez to succeed on her negligent credentialing claim, she must show that the doctor to whom the hospital allegedly negligently extended privileges breached the applicable standard of care in treating Martinez and proximately caused her injuries. Because she failed to rebut the expert testimony that Park didn’t breach the applicable standard of care, St. Margaret can’t be liable for the negligent credentialing of him, the judges held.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT