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. Other than a complete lack of any verifiable and valid historical citations to back your wild context-free accusations, you also forget to allege "ate Native American children, ate slave children, ate their own children, and often did it all while using salad forks rather than dinner forks." (gasp)

  2. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  3. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  4. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  5. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

ADVERTISEMENT