ILNews

Judges find no misconduct by hospital

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of a woman’s motion to correct error and relief from judgment following a verdict in favor of Clarian Health Partners on her medical malpractice complaint. The court found that Clarian’s counsel did not commit misconduct by not supplementing the deposition testimony of one of its doctors – a nonparty to the case – prior to trial.

Deborah Cleveland filed a proposed medical malpractice complaint with the Indiana Department of Insurance against Clarian – now known as Indiana University Health – and the doctors who treated her husband, Robin, after he came to the hospital in 2002 suffering traumatic injuries from a fall. One of the physicians was second-year resident Dr. Jennifer Choi. Robin Cleveland arrived at the hospital at 9:53 a.m., but did not go into surgery until around 10:45 a.m. He bled to death while in surgery.

The 2004 deposition and 2011 trial testimony of Choi are at issue in this appeal. In her deposition, Choi sometimes gave specific times for when the decision was made to move Robin Cleveland to surgery; at other times, she gave vague answers or said she was unsure. The medical review panel found no malpractice occurred. Deborah Cleveland then filed a lawsuit in Marion Superior Court. All the defendants were eventually dismissed except Clarian.

At the trial, Choi’s testimony didn’t always match up to her deposition, and some of her answers changed. She said this was in part due to a review of the operative log and records. She even admitted her recollection of the events may have been incorrect at the time of the deposition.

Deborah Cleveland lost her suit; the trial court denied her motion to correct error and for relief from judgment. She argued that Ind. Trial Rule 26(E)(2) imposes a duty on a party to amend a nonparty witness’s deposition testimony when that party learns of a change in the testimony before trial; and that Clarian’s counsel committed misconduct under Trial Rule 60(B)(3) when counsel did not supplement Choi’s deposition testimony prior to trial. Robin Cleveland cited the dram shop case Outback Steakhouse of Florida v. Markley, 856 N.E.2d 65, 72 (Ind. 2006), to support her argument.

But the Court of Appeals found Outback distinguishable. In the instant case, Choi’s trial testimony was not directly contradictory, as was the testimony at question in Outback.

“When Dr. Choi’s deposition testimony is considered in its entirety, there is an insufficient factual basis in the record to conclude that there was a clear, substantial, and material change in her testimony that, if Trial Rule 26(E)(2) applied, would have triggered any duty on Clarian’s attorneys to amend that testimony prior to trial,” Judge Edward Najam wrote in Deborah A. Cleveland, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Robin W. Cleveland v. Clarian Health Partners, Inc., 49A02-1110-CT-948.
 
There is also no factual basis to show that Clarian knew or should have known that Choi’s trial testimony would render her prior responses incorrect, so the hospital did not have a duty to supplement the deposition testimony and did not commit misconduct by failing to amend that testimony, he continued.
 

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. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT