ILNews

Malpractice defense accused of ‘egregious mischaracterization’ of record

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Defense attorneys who asked for a rehearing from the Indiana Court of Appeals panel that earlier affirmed a trial court medical malpractice jury verdict failed to sway judges who took the opportunity to call out their “egregious mischaracterization” of the record.

The panel affirmed in all respects its opinion of May 20 that upheld a trial court jury’s verdict against Dr. Roger Jay Piatek in a medical malpractice case. In doing so, the panel had harsh words for attorneys from the Fort Wayne firm of Murphy Ice & Koeneman LLP.

"On rehearing, Piatek argues the trial court should have given a contributory negligence instruction because Beale did not provide Piatek with an accurate medical history. Before we consider that argument, we must address Piatek’s egregious mischaracterization of the record in the Petition for Rehearing," Judge Melissa May wrote for the court in Roger Jay Piatek, M.D., and The Piatek Institute v. Shairon Beale, 49A04-1209-CT-463.

Beale won her medical malpractice complaint against Piatek filed after she developed toxic epidermal necrolysis that was believed to have been caused by the medications Piatek prescribed for weight loss. The rehearing brief claims “Beale herself” asserted the doctor’s lack of accurate medical history was the proximate cause of harm.

"Piatek directs us to three places in the trial transcript, none of which reflect Beale ever made any such assertion, or even suggest she might have. Not only is there no support at those places in the transcript for Piatek’s statement, the pages to which Piatek directs us do not even include evidence,” May wrote. “Rather, all are from opening or closing statements by counsel. It is axiomatic that the arguments of counsel are not evidence.

“We note this misrepresentation in Piatek’s petition for rehearing came after we noted a number of deficiencies in the brief Piatek’s counsel submitted on appeal. Those deficiencies included raising allegations not referred to in the Statement of the Issues as required by Indiana Appellate Rule 46(A)(4),” May continued. Those included a transcript submitted with pages out of order, allegations of error unsupported by explanation or citation to legal authority and mischaracterization of certain testimony.
 

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 need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT