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. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT