ILNews

Court addresses use of epidemiological evidence in med mal cases

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals held that the trial court ruled correctly when it did not allow certain epidemiological evidence by a plaintiff’s expert witness in a medical malpractice lawsuit, but the court stopped short of saying this type of evidence could never be admitted in a medical malpractice case.

Ashley Tucker filed a medical malpractice complaint against Dr. Michelle Harrison, alleging the doctor’s negligence in performing a surgical procedure damaged her ovaries and left her infertile. The jury ruled in favor of Harrison, and Tucker appealed on three grounds. She claimed the trial court abused its discretion in excluding testimony from her expert witness, epidemiologist Dr. Michael Freeman, Ph.D.; in denying Tucker the opportunity to question witnesses about possible financial bias; and in refusing to give the jury a res ipsa loquitur instruction.

Freeman described his profession as dealing with populations of people and the kind of injuries or diseases they get and what causes them, and doing statistical analysis of what you find in populations to draw conclusions that are reliable. The court allowed into evidence Freeman’s testimony that one in 700 procedures ever year done in Tucker’s age group resulted in iatrogenic ovarian failure, but excluded his testimony that the procedure is 99 percent likely to be the cause of ovarian failure when it occurs in someone who has had the same procedure as Tucker.

No Indiana case has directly addressed the admissibility of epidemiological evidence in a medical malpractice case, or otherwise. Other jurisdictions have allowed this type of evidence, but the appellate court pointed out those cases cited by Tucker did not involve medical malpractice.

“Testimony establishing that the fact of a surgery makes ovarian failure more likely could mean that Dr. Harrison did everything right and ovarian failure is simply a risk of having any sort of ovarian surgery. It does not establish a causal relationship between Dr. Harrison’s acts or omissions and Tucker’s injury,” Chief Judge Margret Robb wrote in Ashley T. Tucker v. Michelle R. Harrison, M.D., 79A05-1108-CT-404.

Epidemiological testimony is not relevant to the issue of causation in this case, so the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding part of Freeman’s testimony, she wrote, noting this testimony may be admitted in the appropriate medical malpractice case.

The trial court excluded evidence from a physician witness called by Tucker that she says alleges bias on the part of every Indiana doctor because they are all participants in the Indiana Patient’s Compensation Fund, and therefore have a financial interest in whether payouts are made from the fund. The COA affirmed, finding Tucker’s proffered evidence merely speculates through the physician’s testimony that every doctor in Indiana has an interest in limiting financial exposure by limiting payouts from the Patient’s Compensation Fund.

The judges also upheld that Tucker was not entitled to a res ipsa loquitur instruction.

 

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. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT