The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed a jury verdict in favor of a doctor sued for malpractice after a patient died, finding the trial court didn’t err in limiting the plaintiff’s evidence.
Judges must rely on expert opinions instead of determining the significance of particular medical findings themselves, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in a case where it found a judge “played doctor” to review limitations caused by a traumatic brain injury.
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against a woman suing a company for product liability after a piece of her implanted birth control device broke during its removal and was left inside her uterus. The decision upheld a ruling for the device maker in federal district court.
Multi-million-dollar verdicts in personal injury cases are rare in Indiana, but they signify a jury’s determination to provide quality of life for the injured, practitioners say.
A federal judge properly awarded summary judgment to a glue manufacturer after the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals determined a man who claimed he suffered neurological issues from the glue’s fumes failed to provide expert testimony to establish causation.
An Evansville nurse practitioner who has training and licensure beyond that of a nurse, may testify as an expert as to whether a patient’s injuries are consistent with injuries sustained in an automobile accident, but not as to whether the accident caused the injuries, the Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled.
In a case of first impression, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled a patient in a medical malpractice case should have been able to cross-examine the medical expert about his personal medical practices.
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has vacated a district court order denying a request to help an inmate living in another state recruit counsel for an Indiana case, noting that without counsel or a medical expert, the inmate will be unable to build a strong legal case.
A defense expert may not testify whether he believes a Richmond police officer used excessive force when he punched an unruly man in the face three or four times while the man was handcuffed to a hospital gurney.
A Pike County man whose own expert witness raised doubts about his character failed to convince the Indiana Supreme Court he should at least be given the possibility of parole.
A man who failed to produce an expert witness to link his respiratory ailment to a mishap at an amusement park will not be able to continue with his negligence claim.
In a case of first impression, the Indiana Court of Appeals found that a naprapath licensed in Illinois could testify about a woman’s injuries following a slip and fall.
A doctor named as a defendant in a malpractice lawsuit was not required to pay more than $2,000 toward the deposition fees of the plaintiff’s expert, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled.
The Indiana Court of Appeals chastised a pro se litigant for supporting his medical malpractice claim with only a “perfunctory and self-serving” affidavit instead of submitting expert testimony.
A couple who brought a products liability claim against a ladder manufacturer and the store that sold the ladder are entitled to a new trial after the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals found the magistrate judge should not have struck their expert witness’s testimony. The couple lost their case as a result of the judge’s decision.
A judge on the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed citing court precedent that a defendant who was to be examined by the state’s expert based on his insanity defense has no right to the presence of counsel during the psychiatric exam. But Judge Terry Crone argues the Indiana Supreme Court needs to take another look at this issue.
A Steuben County man convicted of attempted murder by a jury of his peers is asking the Indiana Supreme Court to take the rare step of reversing the verdict on the grounds the jury ignored evidence that he was delusional on the day he committed the crime.
The Indiana Court of Appeals upheld a murder conviction Wednesday after the defendant argued his right to confront witnesses against him was violated. But one judge on the panel agreed with Michael Torres and wrote in his dissent that Torres should have a new trial.