ILNews

Judges remand medical malpractice action

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has ordered a trial court to hold a hearing as to what testimony an expert could give and to revise one of its orders in limine in a medical malpractice suit stemming from an overdose of Benadryl more than 15 years ago.

In 1995, Michelle Campbell took her two-year-old son to Riley Children’s Hospital in Indianapolis after he bumped his head. She saw nurse Adrianne Chambers give K.D. an excessive dose of 125 milligrams of Benadryl through an IV instead of the dose of 12.5 milligrams. K.D. soon had a seizure-like reaction and still has a tremor that the plaintiffs claim was proximately caused by the overdose.

In 1997, Campbell and K.D. filed a proposed complaint with the Indiana Department of Insurance, in which the medical review panel found the evidence showed Chambers didn’t comply with the appropriate standard of care. In 2007, the plaintiffs filed a complaint with allegations similar to that in the proposed complaint filed with the IDI. The case is before the Court of Appeals on interlocutory appeal considering whether the trial court abused its discretion when it granted the defendants’ motion to exclude all expert testimony by toxicologist Daniel J. McCoy, Ph.D., on the grounds that he was not qualified to offer expert medical testimony; granted the defendants’ motion in limine to exclude evidence that Campbell suffered negligent infliction of emotional distress because that claim hadn’t been properly pleaded; and granted the defendants’ motion in limine to exclude evidence of breaches of the standard of care, other than the overdose of Benadryl, that were not presented to the medical review panel.

In K.D., et al. v. Adrianne Chambers, R.N., et al., No. 49A04-1010-CT-636, the COA found the trial court abused its discretion in excluding McCoy’s testimony based only on his curriculum vitae and lack of a medical degree without holding an Evidence Rule 702 hearing. This exclusion was premature and overbroad, wrote Chief Judge Margret Robb, because in light of his training in toxicology, his lack of a medical degree doesn’t preclude him as a matter of law from offering testimony relating to the toxic effects of the overdose and whether these include K.D.’s tremor. The judges ordered the trial court to hold the hearing at which the plaintiffs could present further evidence of McCoy’s qualifications and the scientific basis for his proposed testimony.

The judges upheld the decision to exclude evidence that K.D. received other improper doses besides the Benadryl, to the extent that the plaintiffs sought to offer this claimed fact as an additional breach of the standard of care not presented to the medical review panel, wrote Chief Judge Robb. But, the trial court erred in excluding evidence of the allegedly improper rate at which Chambers administered the Benadryl. The failure to give the proper dosage to a child can encompass both the total amount of the drug given as well as the rate at which it is given, she wrote.

The appellate court ordered on remand that the trial court revise its order in limine consistent with the opinion. They also held that Campbell is precluded from presenting to the jury any evidence of her claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress because she failed to sufficiently plead that claim in the proposed complaint before the medical review panel or in the complaint before the trial court.
 

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

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. I wonder if the USSR had electronic voting machines that changed the ballot after it was cast? Oh well, at least we have a free media serving as vicious watchdog and exposing all of the rot in the system! (Insert rimshot)

  2. Jose, you are assuming those in power do not wish to be totalitarian. My experience has convinced me otherwise. Constitutionalists are nearly as rare as hens teeth among the powerbrokers "managing" us for The Glorious State. Oh, and your point is dead on, el correcta mundo. Keep the Founders’ (1791 & 1851) vision alive, my friend, even if most all others, and especially the ruling junta, chase only power and money (i.e. mammon)

  3. Hypocrisy in high places, absolute immunity handed out like Halloween treats (it is the stuff of which tyranny is made) and the belief that government agents are above the constitutions and cannot be held responsible for mere citizen is killing, perhaps has killed, The Republic. And yet those same power drunk statists just reel on down the hallway toward bureaucratic fascism.

  4. Well, I agree with you that the people need to wake up and see what our judges and politicians have done to our rights and freedoms. This DNA loophole in the statute of limitations is clearly unconstitutional. Why should dna evidence be treated different than video tape evidence for example. So if you commit a crime and they catch you on tape or if you confess or leave prints behind: they only have five years to bring their case. However, if dna identifies someone they can still bring a case even fifty-years later. where is the common sense and reason. Members of congress are corrupt fools. They should all be kicked out of office and replaced by people who respect the constitution.

  5. If the AG could pick and choose which state statutes he defended from Constitutional challenge, wouldn't that make him more powerful than the Guv and General Assembly? In other words, the AG should have no choice in defending laws. He should defend all of them. If its a bad law, blame the General Assembly who presumably passed it with a majority (not the government lawyer). Also, why has there been no write up on the actual legislators who passed the law defining marriage? For all the fuss Democrats have made, it would be interesting to know if some Democrats voted in favor of it (or if some Republican's voted against it). Have a nice day.

ADVERTISEMENT