Medical malpractice

Judges remand medical malpractice action

July 13, 2011
Jennifer Nelson
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.
More

Court clarifies ruling on medical review panel process

July 8, 2011
Michael Hoskins
The Indiana Court of Appeals has clarified one of its earlier rulings about when nurses can participate in medical malpractice actions and what evidentiary rules allow in the review panel process if the chairperson reneges on an agreement that a particular individual wouldn’t participate.
More

Court rules on medical malpractice excess damages issue

May 23, 2011
Michael Hoskins
The Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled on an issue of first impression, adopting recent guidance from the state’s highest court to decide that evidence relating to medical malpractice liability can be introduced in determining damages even after someone enters into a settlement with the healthcare provider on that underlying claim.
More

Judges divided on calculation of damages after negligence

April 7, 2011
Jennifer Nelson
The Indiana Court of Appeals was split in deciding whether an estate received the correct amount of damages from the Indiana Patients’ Compensation Fund. One judge believed the trial court used an incorrect approach for calculating damages because the deceased man had at least a 50 percent chance of survival before the medical negligence.
More

COA: Juror bias should have been examined

February 16, 2011
Michael Hoskins
The Indiana Court of Appeals has ordered a new trial for a surgeon accused of medical malpractice during a stem cell collection procedure in which the patient died, finding that the trial court didn’t follow protocol in examining a potential juror’s impartiality and deciding whether to strike that person from the jury pool.
More

Justices take case involving stillborn fetus and Med-Mal Act

January 4, 2011
Jennifer Nelson
The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer to a case in which the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled a mother of a stillborn fetus satisfied the actual victim requirement under the Medical Malpractice Act.
More

Judge dissents in denial of rehearing

December 22, 2010
Jennifer Nelson
Indiana Court of Appeals Judge Margret Robb has issued a lengthy dissent from her colleagues’ denial to rehear a case involving the state’s patient compensation fund. After reviewing the case, she believed the appellate court shouldn’t have applied Restatement (Second) of Torts Section 323.
More

COA: jury should have had access to images

November 9, 2010
Rebecca Berfanger
The Indiana Court of Appeals today reversed and remanded a jury verdict in favor of medical care providers in a medical-malpractice case involving a permanent eye injury following laser eye surgery. The appellate court concluded the trial court's evidentiary and instructional rulings constituted reversible error.
More

Lawyers in uncharted waters with 358 med-mal claims against former physician

October 27, 2010
Michael Hoskins
If ever there was a line of litigation symbolizing a “cornucopia of legal issues,” then it’s the string of claims against the former Merrillville sinus specialist known as “The Nose Doc.”
More

Justices take 3 cases

September 13, 2010
IL Staff
The Indiana Supreme Court accepted transfer of three cases last week, including a case in which the Indiana Court of Appeals lengthened a man’s sentence.
More

Justices rule on Journey’s Account Statute

September 1, 2010
Michael Hoskins
The Indiana Supreme Court believes general negligence claims filed with the Indiana Department of Insurance can continue an action already filed in state court relating to medical malpractice issues.
More

COA panels divided on attorney's fees under AWDA

August 18, 2010
Jennifer Nelson
Nearly a month after an Indiana Court of Appeals panel ruled attorney's fees aren’t recoverable under the Adult Wrongful Death Act in a matter of first impression, another panel unanimously ruled they are recoverable.
More

Mother of stillborn fetus satisfies actual victim requirement in Med-Mal Act

July 27, 2010
Jennifer Nelson
The Indiana Court of Appeals held today that a mother who suffers a stillbirth due to medical malpractice qualifies as an injured patient and satisfies the actual victim requirement under the Medical Malpractice Act, regardless of whether the malpractice resulted in injuries to the mother, fetus, or both.
More

Patient wins case following disclosure of HIV status

July 21, 2010
Rebecca Berfanger
Considering how much information is out there on just about every individual – a simple Google search can prove that – it’s difficult to say what is or isn’t private anymore.
More

Justices: Claim not allowed under MedMal act

June 23, 2010
Jennifer Nelson
Because claims for emotional distress aren’t allowed under the Adult Wrongful Death Statute, a father can’t bring this type of derivative claim under the Medical Malpractice Act, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled today.
More

7th Circuit: Insurer can challenge its duty to defend

June 22, 2010
Elizabeth Brockett
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has lifted a stay imposed by the District Court in Hammond on an insurer’s declaratory judgment action regarding coverage of a physician who skipped town instead of facing criminal charges and civil suits.
More

COA refuses to rule defendants get blanket immunity

June 11, 2010
Jennifer Nelson

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed that an arrestee brought to the hospital by police who was forced to have a catheter to obtain a urine sample can’t sue the health-care providers under the Medical Malpractice Act. The appellate judges also ruled the health-care providers weren’t entitled to blanket immunity.

More

Court: Medical record loss is negligence

April 16, 2010
Michael Hoskins
If a hospital or provider loses records so that a patient can't pursue a medical malpractice case, the Indiana Court of Appeals says state law allows that person to pursue a separate civil action for spoliation of evidence.
More

Court considers broadening emotional distress 'Bystander Rule'

February 3, 2010
Rebecca Berfanger
Parties are waiting for the Supreme Court's decision following arguments in November in a case where a trial court granted and the Court of Appeals affirmed an award for emotional distress above and beyond the capped amount in the Adult Wrongful Death Statute as defined by Indiana Code 34-23-1-2.
More

Immunity extends to underlying diagnoses

January 26, 2010
Jennifer Nelson
In a matter of first impression, the Indiana Court of Appeals concluded that a hospital's statutory immunity for reporting suspected child abuse to authorities extends to its underlying diagnosis.
More

Justices accept 2 civil cases

January 15, 2010
Michael Hoskins
Two civil cases got the go ahead from the Indiana Supreme Court this week to move up for consideration by the state's justices.
More

High court splits in hospital negligence suit

December 1, 2009
Jennifer Nelson
The Indiana Supreme Court split on whether a hospital was negligent in letting a woman with injuries possibly caused by domestic violence leave with her alleged abuser, who killed her on the way home after being discharged.
More

COA to hear arguments at college

November 13, 2009
IL Staff
As a part of its "Appeals on Wheels" initiative, a panel of Indiana Court of Appeals judges will visit St. Mary-of-the-Woods College Nov. 17 to hear arguments in a medical malpractice suit.
More

Testimony based on medical journals allowed

October 8, 2009
Michael Hoskins
A physician testifying at a medical malpractice case should have been allowed to offer testimony based on her reading of medical journals, and a Marion County judge erred when he excluded part of her statements, the Indiana Court of Appeals decided.
More

Attorneys challenge state's med-mal cap

September 16, 2009
Jennifer Nelson
Two central Indiana attorneys have filed a challenge to Indiana's Medical Malpractice Cap, arguing the cap violates the Indiana Constitution. The challenge follows a jury verdict in which a widower won $8.5 million following his wife's death.
More
Page  << 1 2 3 4 5 6 >> pager
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. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT