ILNews

Court upholds damages award against doctor

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Court of Appeals upheld a damages award to the parents of a stillborn child against a doctor, finding the trial court properly excluded opinion testimony from two treating doctors and a letter written to those doctors before the trial by the parents' attorney.

In Jeffrey L. Cain, M.D. v. Richard Back and Suzette Back, No. 20A03-0705-CV-225, Dr. Jeffrey L. Cain appealed the trial court judgment of $800,000 in damages to Richard and Suzette Back on their claim of medical malpractice.

The Backs' daughter was stillborn at 29 1/2 weeks after Suzette was transferred by Cain from Elkhart General Hospital to South Bend Memorial Hospital. Cain and Dr. Starla Graber at Elkhart determined the baby had a low fetal heartbeat and there was a possible abdominal wall defect. Dr. Maria Evangelista at South Bend agreed to accept Suzette. Evangelista induced labor and the child was stillborn.

The Backs filed a complaint against Cain, alleging damages as a result of their daughter's death because Cain should have performed a Caesarean section instead of transferring her to the other hospital.

Cain had Evangelista and Garber testify at trial that he followed proper procedure and his decision to transfer Suzette was reasonable given the circumstances, but the trial court excluded the opinion testimony of the doctors.

Indiana Evidence Trial Rule 701 pertains to the admissibility of lay opinion testimony, which doesn't specify pretrial disclosure requirements. Under Ind. Evid. T.R. 702, expert opinion testimony is subject to pretrial disclosure requirements.

The trial court found and the Court of Appeals agreed that testimony from Evangelista regarding the knowledge of applicable standard of care is based on the expert knowledge she has as a doctor. Evangelista was not disclosed as a Rule 702 expert witness before the trial, and therefore, her opinion testimony should have been excluded, wrote Judge Margret Robb.

The trial court was also within its discretion to exclude Graber's testimony, which also provided opinion testimony considered to be made by an expert.

Cain also appealed the trial court decision to exclude letters written to Evangelista and Graber by the Backs' attorney one month before the trial began. Cain claims the letters, which told the doctors they weren't allowed to testify adversely to Suzette's positions because of the doctor/client relationship and that they had to contact the Backs' attorney before discussing their trial testimony, were an attempt to influence the doctors' testimony.

After reviewing caselaw regarding intimidating messages before a medical malpractice trial, the appellate judges determined the letters weren't intended to improperly influence the doctors' testimony but to let them know not to discuss the case with Cain's attorneys outside the presence of the Backs' counsel, wrote Judge Robb.
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. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT