An insurance company was not required to defend an Indiana doctor in a medical malpractice case because the applicable insurance policy had expired before the insurer received notice of the claim.
After finding that evidence of disputed medical malpractice theories in two cases were presented to the medical review panels in each, Indiana Court of Appeals has reversed summary judgment in favor of a health care provider in one case but is allowing the provider in the other to present evidence related to a subsequent malpractice theory against him.
The Indiana Court of Appeals’ ruling that some claims from those injured or family members of those who died after being injected with contaminated steroids are governed by the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act will stand after the Indiana Supreme Court declined to take the case on transfer last week.
A declaratory judgment action can arise from the same occurrence as an underlying tort action for purposes of permissive joinder under Trial Rule 20, the Indiana Court of Appeals held Tuesday. The judges affirmed the denial of a request to sever two tort counts from a count seeking declaratory judgment.
Are recent appellate court decisions raising the evidentiary threshold for health care defendants?
Can parties present evidence or theories at trial that were not presented to the medical review panel?
The Indiana Court of Appeals has rejected a woman’s malpractice claim after holding that the claim was barred by a two-year statute of limitations.
After a dermatology appointment left a Marion County woman with facial discoloration that never went away as her doctor said it would, the woman sought damages in a negligence complaint. However, because she failed to prove that she “later learned” that her injury was worse than she thought, the Indiana Court of Appeals held that the woman’s claim cannot proceed in court because it was not timely filed.
The Indiana Court of Appeals has rejected a doctor’s argument that a patient’s mother served as an intervening cause to the loss of the patient’s kidney and instead upheld the rule that a parent’s alleged contributory negligence may not be imputed to a child’s medical malpractice claim.
After a widespread fungal meningitis outbreak killed nearly a dozen Hoosiers, the Indiana Court of Appeals decided Monday that the providers who injected the injured parties with a contaminated steroid that was purchased from a third party can be found to be negligent under the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act.
The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed Tuesday a trial court’s decision to deny a motion to strike expert witness testimony after finding that a man could present certain evidence to prove medical malpractice against his now-deceased wife’s former physician.
Kroger must face a claim that its potential negligence in filling a prescription contributed to the death of a woman after she sought treatment for acute bronchitis, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled Thursday in a reversal.
A northern Indiana judgment in favor of a man ruled to have suffered a catastrophic medical malpractice injury that left him paralyzed is the latest case challenging the state’s cap on malpractice damages.
With the advent of the new medical malpractice caps, what will be the effect on the volume of malpractice claims? Moreover, will the cap alterations sufficiently protect the act from constitutional challenges?
Based on the evidence before it, a trial court correctly awarded a man $300,000 in excess damages from the Indiana Patient’s Compensation Fund after an Indianapolis hospital missed the signs he was having a stroke, the Indiana Court of Appeals held Tuesday.
The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled a medical malpractice lawsuit filed by minor children can continue after it found the suit was not untimely filed. The children were in the correct age range to trigger an exception in the Medical Malpractice Act.
A new approach promoted by the federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality is explicitly aimed at saving hospitals money on malpractice litigation while encouraging more robust scrutiny of what went wrong.
The Indiana Court of Appeals noted in its decision Thursday in a medical malpractice lawsuit that the line of authority that has developed on judicial admissions is based on an error made in a 1990 case. The judges used their opinion to affirm the jury verdict in favor of the defendant doctor and to clarify that judicial admissions are conclusive and binding.
The Indiana Supreme Court reversed summary judgment for a hospital and doctor after it found the doctor’s own evidence creates issues of material fact that need to be settled at trial.
The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled a man was never notified that the doctor treating him was an independent contractor and not an employee and therefore reversed summary judgment to the hospital and remanded the man’s vicarious liability case to the trial court.