ILNews

Medical malpractice

July 18, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Trial Report

Trial Reports: Reports on recent Indiana cases from the lawyers and judges involved. Submit a trial report at www.theindianalawyer.com/submit-trial-reports.

Medical malpractice

Resa v. Greathouse-Williams, et al.

Lake County Superior Court

Case Number: 45D02-0902-CT-00039

Injuries: Rupture of diverticulitis with subsequent surgery, colostomy and reversal

Court Date: June 11-14, 2012

Trial Type: Jury

Judge: Hon. Calvin Hawkins

Disposition: Defense verdict

Plaintiff attorney: Daniel Vinovich, Hilbrich Law Firm

Defendant Attorneys: Louis Voelker and Carly Brandenburg of Eichhorn & Eichhorn LLP

Insurance: The Doctors Company

Case Information: Plaintiff received a split panel opinion during the proceedings before the Indiana Department of Insurance. At trial, plaintiff contended that the defendant family practitioner breached the standard of care by failing to diagnose the plaintiff with diverticulitis during an urgent care appointment on May 11, 2006. Two days later, on May 13, 2006, the plaintiff presented to a hospital with a ruptured colon. He required surgery, a colostomy for nearly one year, and then a reversal procedure. The defense submitted evidence to show that the defendant physician was reasonable in diagnosing kidney stones rather than diverticulitis at the time the patient presented. The patient did, in fact, have kidney stones in addition to diverticulitis on May 11, 2006. The defense also presented evidence to show that the patient’s rupture (and therefore surgeries) were unavoidable, even had the diagnosis been made upon the patient’s presentation to the urgent care clinic, given the time frame involved and the speed with which his condition progressed. Ultimately, the jury returned a verdict for the defense after deliberating for approximately 35 minutes.•

Submitting Attorney: Carly Brandenburg

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. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT