Lack of expert testimony leads to judgment in favor of Indiana attorney

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The lack of expert testimony in a yearslong bankruptcy case led to the appropriate grant of summary judgment to an Indiana attorney, the Indiana Court of Appeals found Tuesday.

In what the appellate court referred to as a “seemingly never-ending bankruptcy saga” arising from “a simple slip and fall personal injury claim,” Anna May Webb filed a personal injury claim premised on the slip and fall that occurred in Dr. P. Kevin Barkal’s office in 2000 against Barkal and the San Diego Pain Management Consultants. The parties reached a settlement of $138,000 to be paid out by SDPMC, with Barkal personally guaranteeing payment.

When the two parties stopped making payments, a California court entered judgment against Barkal and SDPMC for $151,971.21. Then, after having difficulty collecting judgment, the California trial court ordered Barkal to turn over all keys, leases, books, records, ledgers and all other business records relating to 12 entities, including Pemcor.

In January 2008, Barkal moved to Munster and filed bankruptcy in Indiana with the assistance of attorney Daniel Freeland. Additionally, Gordon Gouveia, from the firm Gouveia & Associates, (referred to in the opinion as Attorney Gouveia) was hired separately to represent Barkal Entities to prevent conflict of interest.

In March 2008, Freeland moved for turnover against a California post-judgment limited receiver and requested that the receiver deliver all items from the collection against Barkal and Barkal Entities. Then, Gouveia intervened, claiming that Barkal Entities had an interest in the accounts receivables the receiver was seeking to collect.

After the receiver was ordered to turn over $9,494, the bankruptcy court determined that the accounts receivables of Barkal Entities were not property of the Chapter 13 bankruptcy estate and denied for motion for turnover.

Barkal and his attorneys then decided to withdraw the Chapter 13 bankruptcy and Barkal, writing to Gouveia’s associate, Shawn Cox, demanded that Gouveia filed the necessary corporate bankruptcy to stay the foreclosure of his house in California. However, Cox informed Barkal that he was not in a position to represent Barkal Entities to file Chapter 7 bankruptcies, and further wrote, “We did not ever agree to file bankruptcies on behalf of the entities … and we are not accepting such an engagement at this time.”

In January 2009, Barkal hired attorney David Welch to file Chapter 11 bankruptcy for several Barkal Entities. No Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition had been filed for Pemcor. Then in 2010, Barkal and Pemcor filed suit in Lake Superior Court against Gouveia, alleging due to legal malpractice, they lost “meritorious bankruptcy cases and the attendant bankruptcy protection available to (them) under federal law.” Specifically, Barkal alleged malpractice because Gouveia failed to advise him against Chapter 13 bankruptcy, waived an evidentiary hearing to support a motion for turnover and failed to advise or take any additional action once the Chapter 13 bankruptcy was dismissed.

The trial court granted summary judgment to Gouveia, finding that Barkal and Pemcor failed to present expert testimony to establish the appropriate standard of care and subsequent breach.

Barkal appealed, arguing that the deposition testimonies of two attorneys, Welch and Mark Zuckerberg, were properly designated as expert testimony. But Gouveia pointed out that both Welch and Zuckerberg admitted in their depositions that they were not retained as experts in the case because they had not thoroughly reviewed the case.

“Accordingly, while Attorneys Welch and Zuckerberg may be well versed in bankruptcy, here, in the absence of having reviewed the appropriate documentation, their knowledge cannot assist the ‘trier of fact to understand’ whether Attorney Gouveia committed legal malpractice when representing the Barkal Entities in the Chapter 13 proceedings,” Judge Patricia Riley wrote for the unanimous panel.

The case is P. Kevin Barkal, M.D. and Pemcor, Inc. v. Gouveia & Associates, 45A03-1607-CT-1601.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It's an appreciable step taken by the government to curb the child abuse that are happening in the schools. Employees in the schools those are selected without background check can not be trusted. A thorough background check on the teachers or any other other new employees must be performed to choose the best and quality people. Those who are already employed in the past should also be checked for best precaution. The future of kids can be saved through this simple process. However, the checking process should be conducted by the help of a trusted background checking agency(

  2. Almost everything connects to internet these days. From your computers and Smartphones to wearable gadgets and smart refrigerators in your home, everything is linked to the Internet. Although this convenience empowers usto access our personal devices from anywhere in the world such as an IP camera, it also deprives control of our online privacy. Cyber criminals, hackers, spies and everyone else has realized that we don’t have complete control on who can access our personal data. We have to take steps to to protect it like keeping Senseless password. Dont leave privacy unprotected. Check out this article for more ways:

  3. You need to look into Celadon not paying sign on bonuses. We call get the run

  4. My parents took advantage of the fact that I was homeless in 2012 and went to court and got Legal Guardianship I my 2 daughters. I am finally back on my feet and want them back, but now they want to fight me on it. I want to raise my children and have them almost all the time on the weekends. Mynparents are both almost 70 years old and they play favorites which bothers me a lot. Do I have a leg to stand on if I go to court to terminate lehal guardianship? My kids want to live with me and I want to raise them, this was supposed to be temporary, and now it is turning into a fight. Ridiculous

  5. Here's my two cents. While in Texas in 2007 I was not registered because I only had to do it for ten years. So imagine my surprise as I find myself forced to register in Texas because indiana can't get their head out of their butt long enough to realize they passed an ex post facto law in 2006. So because Indiana had me listed as a failure to register Texas said I had to do it there. Now if Indiana had done right by me all along I wouldn't need the aclu to defend my rights. But such is life.