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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It really doesn't matter what the law IS, if law enforcement refuses to take reports (or take them seriously), if courts refuse to allow unrepresented parties to speak (especially in Small Claims, which is supposedly "informal"). It doesn't matter what the law IS, if constituents are unable to make effective contact or receive any meaningful response from their representatives. Two of our pets were unnecessarily killed; court records reflect that I "abandoned" them. Not so; when I was denied one of them (and my possessions, which by court order I was supposed to be able to remove), I went directly to the court. And earlier, when I tried to have the DV PO extended (it expired while the subject was on probation for violating it), the court denied any extension. The result? Same problems, less than eight hours after expiration. Ironic that the county sheriff was charged (and later pleaded to) with intimidation, but none of his officers seemed interested or capable of taking such a report from a private citizen. When I learned from one officer what I needed to do, I forwarded audio and transcript of one occurrence and my call to law enforcement (before the statute of limitations expired) to the prosecutor's office. I didn't even receive an acknowledgement. Earlier, I'd gone in to the prosecutor's office and been told that the officer's (written) report didn't match what I said occurred. Since I had the audio, I can only say that I have very little faith in Indiana government or law enforcement.

  2. One can only wonder whether Mr. Kimmel was paid for his work by Mr. Burgh ... or whether that bill fell to the citizens of Indiana, many of whom cannot afford attorneys for important matters. It really doesn't take a judge(s) to know that "pavement" can be considered a deadly weapon. It only takes a brain and some education or thought. I'm glad to see the conviction was upheld although sorry to see that the asphalt could even be considered "an issue".

  3. In response to bryanjbrown: thank you for your comment. I am familiar with Paul Ogden (and applaud his assistance to Shirley Justice) and have read of Gary Welsh's (strange) death (and have visited his blog on many occasions). I am not familiar with you (yet). I lived in Kosciusko county, where the sheriff was just removed after pleading in what seems a very "sweetheart" deal. Unfortunately, something NEEDS to change since the attorneys won't (en masse) stand up for ethics (rather making a show to please the "rules" and apparently the judges). I read that many attorneys are underemployed. Seems wisdom would be to cull the herd and get rid of the rotting apples in practice and on the bench, for everyone's sake as well as justice. I'd like to file an attorney complaint, but I have little faith in anything (other than the most flagrant and obvious) resulting in action. My own belief is that if this was medicine, there'd be maimed and injured all over and the carnage caused by "the profession" would be difficult to hide. One can dream ... meanwhile, back to figuring out to file a pro se "motion to dismiss" as well as another court required paper that Indiana is so fond of providing NO resources for (unlike many other states, who don't automatically assume that citizens involved in the court process are scumbags) so that maybe I can get the family law attorney - whose work left me with no settlement, no possessions and resulted in the death of two pets (etc ad nauseum) - to stop abusing the proceedings supplemental and small claims rules and using it as a vehicle for harassment and apparently, amusement.

  4. Been on social security sense sept 2011 2massive strokes open heart surgery and serious ovarian cancer and a blood clot in my lung all in 14 months. Got a letter in may saying that i didn't qualify and it was in form like i just applied ,called social security she said it don't make sense and you are still geting a check in june and i did ,now i get a check from my part D asking for payment for july because there will be no money for my membership, call my prescription coverage part D and confirmed no check will be there.went to social security they didn't want to answer whats going on just said i should of never been on it .no one knows where this letter came from was California im in virginia and been here sense my strokes and vcu filed for my disability i was in the hospital when they did it .It's like it was a error . My ,mothers social security was being handled in that office in California my sister was dealing with it and it had my social security number because she died last year and this letter came out of the same office and it came at the same time i got the letter for my mother benefits for death and they had the same date of being typed just one was on the mail Saturday and one on Monday. . I think it's a mistake and it should been fixed instead there just getting rid of me .i never got a formal letter saying when i was being tsken off.

  5. Employers should not have racially discriminating mind set. It has huge impact on the society what the big players do or don't do in the industry. Background check is conducted just to verify whether information provided by the prospective employee is correct or not. It doesn't have any direct combination with the rejection of the employees. If there is rejection, there should be something effective and full-proof things on the table that may keep the company or the people associated with it in jeopardy.

ADVERTISEMENT