ILNews

COA affirms $550,000 med mal verdict; denies appellate attorney fees

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Lake Superior judge did not err when he allowed a witness to testify on behalf of the party bringing a medical malpractice complaint against a doctor nor in excluding the testimony of the doctor’s expert witness due to untimely disclosure, the Indiana Court of Appeals held Tuesday.

The estate of John E. Robinson won a $550,000 jury verdict in a medical malpractice complaint filed against Dr. John O. Carter. John Robinson saw Carter with complaints of stress. Carter performed a physical exam and diagnosed Robinson with severe stress and insomnia and prescribed two drugs. That afternoon, Robinson died.

His wife, Loretta, whom he was separated from at the time of his death, hired Dr. James Bryant to perform an autopsy. Bryant concluded that John Robinson died from acute and chronic congestive heart failure. Loretta Robinson filed her proposed medical complaint with the Department of Insurance in 2004 and then filed her lawsuit in 2009.

Carter died unexpectedly several weeks before the June 2011 trial date. His estate sought to introduce an expert witness to rebut Bryant’s conclusions, but the Lake Superior Judge Jeffery Dywan denied his request. Dywan also allowed Bryant to testify over the estate’s objections.

In Mark Carter and John E. Carter, Co-Personal Rep. of the Estate of John O. Carter, M.D., Deceased v. Loretta Robinson, Individually and as Admin. of the Estate of John E. Robinson, Deceased, 45A05-1110-CT-563, the Court of Appeals rejected the estate’s contention that Bryant’s testimony as an expert witness should have been excluded under Ind. Evidence Rule 702. The estate argued that Bryant found one reason as to how John Robinson died and then did not rule out other possible causes. The judges found the autopsy report’s cause of death was derived by employing the differential etiology method, as Bryant did look at other causes and rule them out.

The COA judges also upheld the decision to not allow the estate’s expert witness, Dr. Michael Kaufman, to testify. Kaufman would have spoke about perceived flaws in Bryant’s methodology. The judges agreed that Kaufman was not timely disclosed as a witness. Bryant was deposed by Carter’s counsel in April 2011, although Carter knew he was an expert witness in July 2009. In May 2011, the estate hired Kaufman, but did not include Kaufman on a June 6, 2011, witness disclosure list. It wasn’t until just a few weeks before trial that the estate attempted to add Kaufman as a witness.

The judges pointed out that Carter’s attorney was still able to point out the weaknesses and perceived flaws within Bryant’s methodology and place those before the jury. They also affirmed the refusal to tender final jury instruction No. 3 with the phrase, “This determination should not be based on hindsight,” as another final instruction included language similar in form and substance.

Loretta Robinson’s request for appellate attorney fees was denied.
 

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. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

  2. This law is troubling in two respects: First, why wasn't the law reviewed "with the intention of getting all the facts surrounding the legislation and its actual impact on the marketplace" BEFORE it was passed and signed? Seems a bit backwards to me (even acknowledging that this is the Indiana state legislature we're talking about. Second, what is it with the laws in this state that seem to create artificial monopolies in various industries? Besides this one, the other law that comes to mind is the legislation that governed the granting of licenses to firms that wanted to set up craft distilleries. The licensing was limited to only those entities that were already in the craft beer brewing business. Republicans in this state talk a big game when it comes to being "business friendly". They're friendly alright . . . to certain businesses.

  3. Gretchen, Asia, Roberto, Tonia, Shannon, Cheri, Nicholas, Sondra, Carey, Laura ... my heart breaks for you, reaching out in a forum in which you are ignored by a professional suffering through both compassion fatigue and the love of filthy lucre. Most if not all of you seek a warm blooded Hoosier attorney unafraid to take on the government and plead that government officials have acted unconstitutionally to try to save a family and/or rescue children in need and/or press individual rights against the Leviathan state. I know an attorney from Kansas who has taken such cases across the country, arguing before half of the federal courts of appeal and presenting cases to the US S.Ct. numerous times seeking cert. Unfortunately, due to his zeal for the constitutional rights of peasants and willingness to confront powerful government bureaucrats seemingly violating the same ... he was denied character and fitness certification to join the Indiana bar, even after he was cleared to sit for, and passed, both the bar exam and ethics exam. And was even admitted to the Indiana federal bar! NOW KNOW THIS .... you will face headwinds and difficulties in locating a zealously motivated Hoosier attorney to face off against powerful government agents who violate the constitution, for those who do so tend to end up as marginalized as Paul Odgen, who was driven from the profession. So beware, many are mere expensive lapdogs, the kind of breed who will gladly take a large retainer, but then fail to press against the status quo and powers that be when told to heel to. It is a common belief among some in Indiana that those attorneys who truly fight the power and rigorously confront corruption often end up, actually or metaphorically, in real life or at least as to their careers, as dead as the late, great Gary Welch. All of that said, I wish you the very best in finding a Hoosier attorney with a fighting spirit to press your rights as far as you can, for you do have rights against government actors, no matter what said actors may tell you otherwise. Attorneys outside the elitist camp are often better fighters that those owing the powers that be for their salaries, corner offices and end of year bonuses. So do not be afraid to retain a green horn or unconnected lawyer, many of them are fine men and woman who are yet untainted by the "unique" Hoosier system.

  4. I am not the John below. He is a journalist and talk show host who knows me through my years working in Kansas government. I did no ask John to post the note below ...

  5. "...not those committed in the heat of an argument." If I ever see a man physically abusing a woman or a child and I'm close enough to intercede I will not ask him why he is abusing her/him. I will give him a split second to cease his attack and put his hands in the air while I call the police. If he continues, I will still call the police but to report, "Man down with a gunshot wound,"instead.

ADVERTISEMENT