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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  2. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  3. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  4. Different rules for different folks....

  5. I would strongly suggest anyone seeking mediation check the experience of the mediator. There are retired judges who decide to become mediators. Their training and experience is in making rulings which is not the point of mediation.

ADVERTISEMENT