ILNews

COA: jury should have had access to images

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals today reversed and remanded a jury verdict in favor of medical care providers in a medical-malpractice case involving a permanent eye injury following laser eye surgery. The appellate court concluded the trial court’s evidentiary and instructional rulings constituted reversible error.

In Paul Arlton v. Gary Schraut, M.D., and Lafayette Retina Clinic, No. 79A02-0906-CV-541, Paul Arlton presented three issues: whether the trial court abused its discretion when it sustained Dr. Gary Schraut’s objections to Arlton’s proffer of printed, enlarged copies of angiograms depicting Arlton’s retina; whether the trial court abused its discretion when it refused to provide the jury with access to digital evidence during deliberations; and whether the trial court abused its discretion in refusing Arlton’s tendered instruction informing the jury that they could review the digital evidence during deliberations.

In the late 1980s, Arlton was diagnosed with a condition known as choroidal neovascularization, an abnormal growth of blood vessels near the retina. If untreated, this condition can cause loss of vision and possibly blindness.

He was treated for the illness in 1987 and again in 1989. He noted no new problems until 2002, when he visited an emergency room and was referred to Dr. Schraut.

The doctor then ordered a fluorescein angiogram, where fluorescent dye was injected into his blood, and a series of photos were taken of his retina. While photos in September 2002 didn’t show a recurrence, photos taken in October 2002 revealed choroidal neovascularization had recurred.

On Nov. 5, 2002, Dr. Schraut performed laser photocoagulation surgery on Arlton’s left eye. Dr. Schraut claimed that during that surgery, Arlton jumped and a shape on his retina reflected that he had moved.

The two disagreed over whether the doctor admitted to further damaging a scar Arlton already had during surgery. An angiogram taken Nov. 27, 2002, showed the condition had been treated and swelling had decreased, but the blind spot remained.

Experts also had different takes on whether the doctor made the blind spot worse or if he had any impact after examining the angiograms and/or Arlton.

On Nov. 4, 2004, Arlton filed a proposed complaint against Dr. Schraut and the Lafayette Retina Clinic with the Indiana Department of Insurance. A Medical Review Panel found in favor of the medical care providers on March 28, 2007, and a jury trial took place May 11-14, 2009.

At trial, jurors had access to color copies of images taken from the angiograms from Sept. 24, 2002, Oct. 31, 2002, and Nov. 27, 2002 – nine images of each angiogram were printed on 8.5 x 11 inch paper. Three CD-ROM discs of the digital images were also admitted. Enlarged photos were shown to the jury using a projector and a screen.

However, following objections from the medical care providers, enlargements Arlton personally made of the images were not made available to the jurors, and the discs were also not available to jurors because of concerns from the medical care providers that the images might be enlarged or focused by the jurors.

The Court of Appeals found that there was no reason to believe the enlargements by Arlton were not authentic; that the jurors should have somehow had access to the digital evidence – “ideally … before deliberations begin … so that the trial court does not have to scramble just before deliberations trying to find a way to let the jury access admitted digital evidence”; and that a jury instruction Arlton suggested regarding the digital evidence, “informing the jury that, if they so desired, they could review the digital evidence during deliberations,” was proper, wrote Court of Appeals Judge Paul D. Mathias.

He added the case came down to an issue of credibility.

“Even Dr. Schraut admitted that placing a laser burn within a pre-existing retinal scar was below his personal standards and below the standard of care. … Dr. Schraut simply denied that he had placed a laser burn within Arlton’s pre-existing scar, whereas (a professor of ophthalmology at the Johns Hopkins University who specializes in retinal and macular diseases and treatment) testified that the angiograms contained evidence that Dr. Schraut did indeed place a laser burn within the pre-existing scar,” he wrote.

“We conclude that the trial court’s evidentiary and instructional rulings constitute reversible error because the end result of these decisions was to deny the jury access to evidence which directly implicated the heart of the matter the jury was asked to decide,” Judge Mathias wrote. “We therefore reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand this cause for a new trial consistent with this opinion.”
 

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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. A traditional parade of attorneys? Really Evansville? Y'all need to get out more. When is the traditional parade of notaries? Nurses? Sanitation workers? Pole dancers? I gotta wonder, do throngs of admiring citizens gather to laud these marching servants of the constitution? "Show us your billing records!!!" Hoping some video gets posted. Ours is not a narcissistic profession by any chance, is it? Nah .....

  2. My previous comment not an aside at court. I agree with smith. Good call. Just thought posting here a bit on the if it bleeds it leads side. Most attorneys need to think of last lines of story above.

  3. Hello everyone I'm Gina and I'm here for the exact same thing you are. I have the wonderful joy of waking up every morning to my heart being pulled out and sheer terror of what DCS is going to Throw at me and my family today.Let me start from the !bebeginning.My daughter lost all rights to her 3beautiful children due to Severe mental issues she no longer lives in our state and has cut all ties.DCS led her to belive that once she done signed over her right the babies would be with their family. We have faught screamed begged and anything else we could possibly due I hired a lawyer five grand down the drain.You know all I want is my babies home.I've done everything they have even asked me to do.Now their saying I can't see my grandchildren cause I'M on a prescription for paipain.I have a very rare blood disease it causes cellulitis a form of blood poisoning to stay dormant in my tissues and nervous system it also causes a ,blood clotting disorder.even with the two blood thinners I'm on I still Continue to develop them them also.DCS knows about my illness and still they refuse to let me see my grandchildren. I Love and miss them so much Please can anyone help Us my grandchildren and I they should be worrying about what toy there going to play with but instead there worrying about if there ever coming home again.THANK YOU DCS FOR ALL YOU'VE DONE. ( And if anyone at all has any ideals or knows who can help. Please contact (765)960~5096.only serious callers

  4. He must be a Rethuglican, for if from the other side of the aisle such acts would be merely personal and thus not something that attaches to his professional life. AND ... gotta love this ... oh, and on top of talking dirty on the phone, he also, as an aside, guess we should mention, might be important, not sure, but .... "In addition to these allegations, Keaton was accused of failing to file an appeal after he collected advance payment from a client seeking to challenge a ruling that the client repay benefits because of unreported income." rimshot

  5. I am not a fan of some of the 8.4 discipline we have seen for private conduct-- but this was so egregious and abusive and had so many points of bad conduct relates to the law and the lawyer's status as a lawyer that it is clearly a proper and just disbarment. A truly despicable account of bad acts showing unfit character to practice law. I applaud the outcome.

ADVERTISEMENT