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. Based on several recent Indy Star articles, I would agree that being a case worker would be really hard. You would see the worst of humanity on a daily basis; and when things go wrong guess who gets blamed??!! Not biological parent!! Best of luck to those who entered that line of work.

  2. I was looking through some of your blog posts on this internet site and I conceive this web site is rattling informative ! Keep on posting . dfkcfdkdgbekdffe

  3. Don't believe me, listen to Pacino: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6bC9w9cH-M

  4. Law school is social control the goal to produce a social product. As such it began after the Revolution and has nearly ruined us to this day: "“Scarcely any political question arises in the United States which is not resolved, sooner or later, into a judicial question. Hence all parties are obliged to borrow, in their daily controversies, the ideas, and even the language, peculiar to judicial proceedings. As most public men [i.e., politicians] are, or have been, legal practitioners, they introduce the customs and technicalities of their profession into the management of public affairs. The jury extends this habitude to all classes. The language of the law thus becomes, in some measure, a vulgar tongue; the spirit of the law, which is produced in the schools and courts of justice, gradually penetrates beyond their walls into the bosom of society, where it descends to the lowest classes, so that at last the whole people contract the habits and the tastes of the judicial magistrate.” ? Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

  5. Attorney? Really? Or is it former attorney? Status with the Ind St Ct? Status with federal court, with SCOTUS? This is a legal newspaper, or should I look elsewhere?

ADVERTISEMENT