ILNews

Sunburned man gets no relief

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled that a badly sunburned patient failed to meet the burden of res ipsa loquitur in a medical malpractice lawsuit against his dermatologist.  

Kenneth W. Smith was a patient of Dr. Alan R. Gilbert, a dermatologist at Dermatology Associates of Fort Wayne PC, a/k/a Dermatology & Laser Surgery Association of Fort Wayne PC, where he received Psoralen UVA treatments for his psoriasis. For a 10-year period starting in December 1994, he had 147 treatments which involved him taking the drug Psoralen and then being exposed to UVA light.

 After his last laser treatment on Dec. 8, 2004, he returned to work but became ill and eventually went to the emergency room. From there, he was admitted to the Burn Unit of St. Joseph Hospital in Fort Wayne with first and second degree burns to about 84 percent of his body.

On Feb. 6, 2009, Smith and his wife filed a complaint against the doctor’s office. They alleged that the negligence of the medical personnel or machine malfunction created a res ipsa loquitur inference that an act of malpractice may have occurred.

The trial court concluded the Smiths had failed to establish that the dermatology practice had exclusive control of the PUVA machine or that the injuries allegedly suffered by Smith would not have occurred without negligence. Also, the court found that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was inapplicable and that the Smiths had failed to meet their burden of establishing by direct or circumstantial evidence that DLSA breached its duty to care.

The Smiths appealed claiming the trial court erred by concluding that they had failed to present sufficient evidence to invoke the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.

In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Indiana Court of Appeals found in Kenneth W. Smith and Deb-Anne Smith vs. Dermatology Associates of Fort Wayne, P.C. a/k/a Dermatology & Laser Surgery Associates of Fort Wayne, P.C., 02A03-1201-CT-41, that the Smiths were unable to meet the first element of res ipsa loquitur, that the medical office had exclusive control of the PUVA machine. In addition, the couple was unable to establish the second element of the doctrine that his injuries would not have occurred without negligence.

 

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT