Medical malpractice judgment upheld by appellate court

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has affirmed the $1.25 million judgment against a gastroenterologist after a patient brought a medical malpractice claim for a missed cancer diagnosis. The judges found the trial court didn’t abuse its discretion in excluding certain evidence.

In John Morse, M.D. v. Jeffrey Wayne Davis, No. 84A05-1103-CT-140, Dr. John Morse appealed the verdict against him – which had been reduced from $2.5 million to the statutory cap of $1.25 million – after a jury found he committed medical malpractice when he failed to order tests or diagnose colon cancer in patient Jeffrey Davis.

Davis visited Morse, who was his mother’s doctor when she had colon cancer, in 2004 complaining of nausea, upper stomach pain and occasional rectal bleeding. Morse performed some tests, but did not order a sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy. A year later, Davis came back to have medication refilled before he moved to Arizona. Davis’ records don’t note his family history of colon cancer, that Davis reported rectal bleeding or that he reported any other symptoms at his follow-up visit. When Davis moved to Arizona, he visited another doctor, who performed a colonoscopy and found advanced stage four cancer in his bowel, lymph nodes and liver.

There was conflicting evidence as to whether Davis told Morse about his rectal bleeding and that his mother had colon cancer. At a pre-trial hearing, Davis moved to strike two defense witnesses – a doctor who saw Davis for unrelated medical treatment, and a nurse who wrote down Davis’ complaints during the follow-up office visit with Morse. Both would have supported Morse’s argument that Davis was contributorily negligent by not reporting his symptoms. Davis also moved to exclude from evidence a medical history questionnaire submitted to the Arizona doctor which did not indicate a family history of colon cancer. Davis testified that he couldn’t recall whether he or someone else filled the form out. He also moved to preclude any opinion from the medical review panel doctors stating that Morse complied with the standard of care. The jury was instructed on contributory negligence.

The COA found that Morse didn’t show that the trial court abused its discretion when it precluded testimony from his expert witnesses saying that they believed Davis had not advised Morse that his mother had a history of colon cancer despite Davis’ testimony to the contrary. The purpose of that testimony would have been to impeach Davis’ credibility on a critical issue of fact, namely, whether he had told Morse about his mother’s colon cancer, wrote Judge Edward Najam. A determination of Davis’ credibility was within the sole province of the jury, and the proffered testimony was prohibited under Evidence Rule 704(b). Likewise, Dr. Morse has not shown any abuse of discretion in the exclusion of the questionnaire or the testimony of the doctor and nurse, the judges concluded.



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. This state's high court has spoken, the fair question is answered. Years ago the Seventh Circuit footnoted the following in the context of court access: "[2] Dr. Bowman's report specifically stated that Brown "firmly believes he is obligated as a Christian to put obedience to God's laws above human laws." Dr. Bowman further noted that Brown expressed "devaluing attitudes towards pharmacological or psycho-therapeutic mental health treatment" and that he made "sarcastic remarks devaluing authority of all types, especially mental health authority and the abortion industry." 668 F.3d 437 (2012) SUCH acid testing of statist orthodoxy is just and meet in Indiana. SUCH INQUISITIONS have been green lighted. Christians and conservatives beware.

  2. It was all that kept us from tyranny. So sad that so few among the elite cared enough to guard the sacred trust. Nobody has a more sacred obligation to obey the law than those who make the law. Sophocles No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we ask him to obey it. Obedience to the law is demanded as a right; not asked as a favor. Theodore Roosevelt That was the ideal ... here is the Hoosier reality: The King can do no wrong. Legal maxim From the Latin 'Rex non potest peccare'. When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal. Richard Nixon

  3. So men who think they are girls at heart can use the lady's potty? Usually the longer line is for the women's loo, so, the ladies may be the ones to experience temporary gender dysphoria, who knows? Is it ok to joke about his or is that hate? I may need a brainwash too, hey! I may just object to my own comment, later, if I get myself properly "oriented"

  4. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  5. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.