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. I have had an ongoing custody case for 6 yrs. I should have been the sole legal custodial parent but was a victim of a vindictive ex and the system biasedly supported him. He is an alcoholic and doesn't even have a license for two yrs now after his 2nd DUI. Fast frwd 6 yrs later my kids are suffering poor nutritional health, psychological issues, failing in school, have NO MD and the GAL could care less, DCS doesn't care. The child isn't getting his ADHD med he needs and will not succeed in life living this way. NO one will HELP our family.I tried for over 6 yrs. The judge called me an idiot for not knowing how to enter evidence and the last hearing was 8 mths ago. That in itself is unjust! The kids want to be with their Mother! They are being alienated from her and fed lies by their Father! I was hit in a car accident 3 yrs ago and am declared handicapped myself. Poor poor way to treat the indigent in Indiana!

  2. The Indiana DOE released the 2015-2016 school grades in Dec 2016 and my local elementary school is a "C" grade school. Look at the MCCSC boundary maps and how all of the most affluent neighborhoods have the best performance. It is no surprise that obtaining residency in the "A" school boundaries cost 1.5 to 3 times as much. As a parent I should have more options than my "C" school without needing to pay the premium to live in the affluent parts of town. If the charter were authorized by a non-religious school the plaintiffs would still be against it because it would still be taking per-pupil money from them. They are hiding behind the guise of religion as a basis for their argument when this is clearly all about money and nothing else.

  3. This is a horrible headline. The article is about challenging the ability of Grace College to serve as an authorizer. 7 Oaks is not a religiously affiliated school

  4. Congratulations to Judge Carmichael for making it to the final three! She is an outstanding Judge and the people of Indiana will benefit tremendously if/when she is chosen.

  5. The headline change to from "religious" to "religious-affiliated" is still inaccurate and terribly misleading.

ADVERTISEMENT