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. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT