ILNews

Summary judgment proper on issue of causation, COA rules

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has affirmed summary judgment in favor of a doctor sued by a patient who claimed a delay in a diagnosis caused him to have increased pain and problems. The evidence doesn’t establish a genuine issue of material fact on the issue of causation.

Joseph Laycock was stabbed in the thigh with a red-hot welding wire at work and immediately treated by a work clinic nurse under the supervision of Dr. Joseph Sliwkowski. Three days later, Laycock went back to the clinic because of tightness and pain in his thigh. He was sent home and the next day, he went to the emergency room because of unbearable pain. He was diagnosed with compartment syndrome and underwent surgery for the condition.

Laycock filed a proposed medical malpractice complaint with the Department of Insurance, and a medical review panel unanimously ruled in favor of Sliwkowski. A year later, Laycock sued the doctor, alleging he had a duty to exercise reasonable care to see that Laycock obtained proper treatment.

Laycock’s expert witness, Dr. Herbert Hermele, testified that while it is important in general to not delay treatment regarding compartment syndrome, he could not say in Laycock’s case that his condition was worse because of the 24-hour delay in treatment.

The trial court granted Sliwkowski’s motion for summary judgment.

Laycock claimed on appeal there are questions of fact related to causation regarding the second time he went to the clinic regarding his thigh. He argued that the  approach outlined in Mayhue v. Sparkman, 653 N.E.2d, 1384, 1386 (Ind. 1995), should apply in his case, but the Court of Appeals judges rejected his claim. There is no claim or evidence that he had a 50 percent or worse chance of recovery from the original injury, so Mayhue is not applicable. Thus, traditional causation principles apply.

Hermele’s testimony was not sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Sliwkowski’s treatment was the proximate cause of Laycock’s injuries, so the appeals panel upheld summary judgment for the doctor in Joseph Laycock v. Joseph Sliwkowski, M.D., 79A04-1310-CT-521.
 

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. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  2. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

  3. I am one of Steele's victims and was taken for $6,000. I want my money back due to him doing nothing for me. I filed for divorce after a 16 year marriage and lost everything. My kids, my home, cars, money, pension. Every attorney I have talked to is not willing to help me. What can I do? I was told i can file a civil suit but you have to have all of Steelers info that I don't have. Of someone can please help me or tell me what info I need would be great.

  4. It would appear that news breaking on Drudge from the Hoosier state (link below) ties back to this Hoosier story from the beginning of the recent police disrespect period .... MCBA president Cassandra Bentley McNair issued the statement on behalf of the association Dec. 1. The association said it was “saddened and disappointed” by the decision not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson for shooting Michael Brown. “The MCBA does not believe this was a just outcome to this process, and is disheartened that the system we as lawyers are intended to uphold failed the African-American community in such a way,” the association stated. “This situation is not just about the death of Michael Brown, but the thousands of other African-Americans who are disproportionately targeted and killed by police officers.” http://www.thestarpress.com/story/news/local/2016/07/18/hate-cops-sign-prompts-controversy/87242664/

  5. What form or who do I talk to about a d felony which I hear is classified as a 6 now? Who do I talk to. About to get my degree and I need this to go away it's been over 7 years if that helps.

ADVERTISEMENT