Katherine Chaffins, et al. v. Clint Kauffman, M.D., et al. - 8/27/13

Back to TopPrintE-mail
Tuesday  August 27, 2013 
11:00 AM  EST

11 a.m. 66A04-1302-CT-85. Katherine Chaffins and her husband appeal the grant of summary judgment in favor of Dr. Clint Kauffman; his practice, Family and Women’s Health Services; and Pulaski County Memorial Hospital.  Dr. Kauffman performed a routine colonoscopy on Katherine, immediately after which Katherine complained to the hospital staff of intense abdominal pain.  Katherine was presumed to have common gas pain, no further inquiry was made, and she was discharged from the hospital after twenty-two minutes of recovery.  Twelve hours later, Katherine’s pain had worsened, and she returned to the hospital, where an X-ray revealed that her colon had been perforated during the procedure.

The Chaffinses filed a negligence claim against the three defendants, alleging their decision to discharge Katherine without inquiring into the source of her pain fell below a reasonable standard of care associated with post-colonoscopy treatment.  A medical malpractice review panel found that the defendants were not negligent, and the Pulaski Superior Court subsequently granted summary judgment in their favor.  On appeal, the Chaffinses argue that they presented sufficient evidence of disputed material fact with regard to the standard of care.  The Chaffinses’ expert witness testified that a perforated colon must be considered, and an X-ray must be performed, when a patient complains of severe abdominal pain following a colonoscopy.  This testimony, the Chaffinses claim, was in direct conflict with the medical malpractice review panel’s findings on the issue.

Back to Events
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. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT