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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT