Testimony based on medical journals allowed

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A physician testifying at a medical malpractice case should have been allowed to offer testimony based on her reading of medical journals, and a Marion County judge erred when he excluded part of her statements, the Indiana Court of Appeals decided.

The error, however, was harmless and didn't affect the overall outcome in a medical negligence case against a Wishard Memorial Hospital doctor stemming from a relative's death following post-operative treatment.

The court issued its unanimous ruling today in Linda Spaulding, et al. v. Erinn R. Harris, M.D. and Health and Hospital Corp. of Marion County d/b/a Wishard Memorial Hospital, No. 49A02-0810-CV-954. The case involves the medical treatment and subsequent death of Mattie Spaulding, a morbidly obese 58-year-old woman who underwent emergency aortic valve replacement surgery for congestive heart failure. A couple months after the procedure in March 2002, she consulted with Harris at Wishard's Blackburn Community Health Center for post-operative blood monitoring for possible clots. She had blood tests to monitor her coagulation factor because of being on a blood thinner. On June 20, 2002, an ambulance was called to her house; however, she refused three times to be transported. Three days later, she was taken to Community Hospital and diagnosed with a subdural hematoma for which she underwent a craniotomy. She was later transferred to a rehabilitation facility, where she suffered acute respiratory failure and died. The cause of death was a blood clot traveling to the lungs and preventing oxygenation.

After her death, the Spaulding family filed a complaint with the Indiana Department of Insurance against Dr. Erinn Harris and Wishard Memorial Hospital, alleging the doctor failed to adequately monitor Mattie's coagulation and that she developed her injuries because of negligence. Two members of a medical review panel found in May 2006 that a material issue of fact existed and should be heard by a jury, while a third panelist determined the defendants had failed to provide the appropriate standard of care. The Spauldings then filed suit in Marion Superior Court.

An issue arose when one of the medical review panelists, a primary care doctor, testified based on her experience in administering blood thinners and monitoring coagulation like Mattie's. She testified in a video deposition that a medical article she'd consulted showed higher blood levels could present a greater danger for spontaneous bleeds, and that her belief was that Harris should have tested Mattie more often; she had no tests between June 4 and 23. Judge Gerald Zore redacted portions of the expert's causation testimony that was based on medical literature, but the Spauldings argued that testimony was improperly excluded.

The Court of Appeals agreed, citing caselaw from the 1980s to show expert witnesses can draw upon all sources of information and consult authoritative sources to reach a conclusion. Finding that Indiana Code Section 34-18-10-23 does not give review panel members a "free pass to testify on any matters they so choose," the court acknowledged that she could consult medical periodicals during the deposition under Rule 702. However, the exclusion was harmless because at least three others statements from that doctor were admitted and other testimony showed a similar connection about the medical issue.

The court also determined that the trial court didn't abuse its discretion by excluding the words "Department of Insurance" on the medical review panel opinion and that admitting a redacted copy of that certified opinion was allowed.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.