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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  2. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  3. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  4. Different rules for different folks....

  5. I would strongly suggest anyone seeking mediation check the experience of the mediator. There are retired judges who decide to become mediators. Their training and experience is in making rulings which is not the point of mediation.

ADVERTISEMENT