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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT