August 27, 2008

Proposed Contributory Negligence Instruction Denied in Indiana Medical Malpractice Case

In an interesting case decided this past July, the Indiana Court of Appeals held that instructions on contributory negligence were not warranted where the plaintiff had failed to correctly disclose her mammogram history to her doctor before undergoing breast augmentation surgery.

In Joyner-Wentland vs. Waggoner, the plaintiff brought a medical malpractice suit against her doctor after she failed to order a mammogram before performing breast augmentation surgery on her. In her initial plastic surgery consultation, the plaintiff stated her last mammogram had come back clear and that it had been taken two years prior, when it had actually been five years prior. As a result, the defendant plastic surgeon proceeded with plaintiff's augmentation surgery. While operating, the defendant discovered the plaintiff was suffering from breast cancer and ultimately, the surgery caused plaintiff's cancer condition to significantly worsen.

On appeal, the Indiana Court of Appeals found there to be "overwhelming" evidence that plaintiff's untruthfulness as to the date of her last mammogram did not contribute to her injuries. It further explained that the standard of care was that mammograms should be performed annually for women over fifty years old and even though plaintiff misrepresented the date of her last mammogram, the information she presented the defendant with still called for a pre-surgery mammogram under the standard. Consequently, it held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in prohibiting an instruction that plaintiff was contributory negligent in giving incorrect information on her pre-surgery intake form.

Joyner-Wentland v. Waggoner, 890 N.E.2d 730 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).

August 14, 2008

Failure to Mitigate Damages through Surgery

In Simmons v. Erie Ins. Exchange, the defendant insurance company argued that plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages due to his failure to undergo surgery to treat his plantar fasciitis, which resulted from his involvement in an automobile accident. Plaintiff had received full insurance policy limits from the individual that was 100% at fault in causing the collision and was seeking to recover from defendant insurance company whom plaintiff held an underinsured motorist policy with. On appeal, the Indiana Court of Appeals held “that whether a plaintiff has a duty to submit to surgery requires a ‘reasonable person’ analysis.” The Court further concluded that even though the question of whether a reasonable person would submit to surgery is one for the jury, “under some circumstances, courts will be able to answer the question as a matter of law.” When judges or juries are making a reasonable person inquiry regarding surgery, the Court held they should consider the following factors: 1) the likelihood that the surgery will correct or improve the condition; 2) the risk involved in the surgery; 3) the pain or inconvenience caused by the surgery; and 4) the ability of the plaintiff to bear the cost of surgery. Following the Indiana Supreme Court’s opinion in Willis v. Westerfield, the Court noted that even though normally expert medical opinion would be necessary in regard to the first three factors, “no bright-line rule exists on this point.” Simmons v. Erie Ins. Exchange, 2008 WL 3271552 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).

August 8, 2008

Indiana State Police Seek Driver in Fatal I-65 Hit-and-Run Accident in Clark County

Wave3.com has reported that police are seeking the driver of a S-10 truck that was involved in a hit-and-run accident early morning on August 2. Indiana State Police reported that the truck, identified by state police to look nearly identical to the truck shown in the picture below, collided with a motorcycle, leaving the operator fatally injured. The truck subsequently left the scene of the accident after the collision occurred.

Police ask that you call the Indiana State Police or Crime Stoppers with any information relating to this accident.

8808333_BG1.jpg
Picture Courtesy of Wave3.com and Indiana State Police

August 6, 2008

Treating Physician's Testimony Going to the Standard of Care in Indiana Medical Malpractice Case is Treated as Expert Testimony

In a recent medical malpractice case, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed a $800,000 judgment against a doctor after a family had brought a claim relating to the stillbirth of their daughter.

On appeal, the doctor argued that the trial court "improperly excluded opinion testimony" from two of the patient's treating physicians, who were giving favorable testimony to the doctor that went to the standard of care. At trial, two treating physicians' testimony were objected to, as they had not been disclosed as experts under Indiana Evidence Rule 702. On appeal, Defendant doctor's counsel unsuccessfully argued that the treating physicians' testimony relating to the standard of care were based on personal perceptions under Indiana Evidence Rule 701. However, the Indiana Court of Appeals held that "knowledge of the standard of care was not based on physician's perception, rather, it was based on the physician's expert knoweledge." Consequently, the Indiana Court of Appeals held that it was not an abuse of discretion for the trial court to exclude the treating physicians' testimony as to whether the defendant deviated from the standard of care as an undisclosed expert opinion.

See Cain v. Back, 889 N.E.2d 1253 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).

July 29, 2008

38-Year-Old Mother and 4-Year-Old Son Critically Injured in Interstate 65 Accident Near Roselawn

The Post-tribune.com has reported that Monday afternoon two trucking accidents occurred on Interstate 65 near the Roselawn, Indiana interstate exit. Both accidents combined to injure 4 people total, which included leaving a 38-year-old mother and her 4-year-old son critically injured, and also caused traffic to be backed up on Interstate 65 for hours.

Initially, a semitrailer rear-ended the motor vehicle carrying a mother and her son, who were slow moving due to construction work on the interstate. The semitrailer pushed the family's car into a guard rail, ultimately pinning it between the rail and the semi, while hitting two other motor vehicles in the process.

Indiana State Police blocked off the roadway as rescue and emergency teams dealt with the first accident scene. As traffic built up, a second semitrailer jacknifed at a location further south of the initial Interstate 65 accident scene, which resulted in a second closure. Indiana State Police closed Interstate 65 for more than 4 hours dealing with the two accidents.

July 24, 2008

Indiana Court of Appeals Upholds Award of Prejudgment Interest in Medical Malpractice Case

The Indiana Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's award of prejudgment interest in a medical malpractice case earlier this month in Hupfer v. Miller, 2008 WL 2600021 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). In Hupfer, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the Plaintiff for $75,000 against a podiatrist who was found liable for committing malpractice. Following the verdict, the Plaintiff filed a motion for prejudgment interest. The trial court granted the motion and awarded the plaintiff $24,000 after applying an interest rate of 8%.

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision on appeal. In doing so, it stated that the initial award of prejudgment interest was made pursuant to the Tort Prejudgment Interest Statute ("TPIS") (or IC 34-51-4-1 et. seq.), which was enacted to "encourage settlement and to compensate the Plaintiff for the lost time value of money." Moreover, TPIS preempts comomon law prejudgment interest in tort cases.

On appeal, the Defendant argued that Plaintiff's written settlement offer did not comply with TPIS because it failed to specify the exact Plaintiff and Defendant to whom the offer applied. The Court disagreed stating the it was clear who the offer was directed at when the letter was sent from the individuals who filed the claim to the person whom the claim was filed against.

The Defendant also argued that the prejudgment award violated TPIS as it was more than one and one-third (1 1/3) the amount of the total judgment. The Court again disagreed explaining that the TPIS states the prejudgment interest award must not exceed one and one-thid the total amount of the judgment and in the case at hand the prejudgment interest award was exactly one and one-third.

Lastly, the Defendant unsuccessfully argued that the trial court erred in awarding prejudgment interest when it applied a prejudgment interest rate of 8%. The Court, however, noted that the TPIS allows a trial court to award a prejudgment interest rate of not less than 6% and no more than 10% per year. Consequently, the trial court was within its discretion to award 8%.

July 21, 2008

2 Dead in Boone County/Interstate 65 Car Accident

Msnbc.msn.com has reported that early Saturday morning a 33-year-old Indianapolis man accessed Interstate 65 northbound in the wrong direction, causing a motor vehicle accident killing both himself and the driver of another car. Mark Cabbell, Jr. was identified as the driver of the car headed in the wrong direction that collided with the car driven by 22-year-old Samatha Burke, as she was headed northbound near the State Road 39 exit. Burke was heading home from her shift as a nurse at Riley Children's Hospital.

Both drivers were pronounced dead at the scene of the accident. Police are investigating whether Cabbell was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident.

July 17, 2008

American Association for Justice Releases Study on U.S. Insurance Industry

The SunHerald.com reported that the American Association for Justice ("AMJ") recently released a report ranking the United States "worst" insurance companies based on factors such as: refusal to pay just claims, the company employs harball tactics against policyholders, rewarding of company executives with extravagant salaries, and the raising of premiums while stockpiling excessive profits.

Researchers for the AMJ spent six months gathering information to base the report on. According to the SunHerald.com, researchers used "court documents, SEC and FBI records, state insurance department investigations and complaints, nationwide news accounts, and testimony of former insurance agents and adjusters" to draw their conclusions.

The top five "worst" companies listed in the report are:
1. Allstate
2. Unum
3. AIG
4. State Farm
5. Conseco

July 14, 2008

Indiana Coal Miner Fatally Injured in Mining Accident

The Indianagazette.com recently reported that a Cambria County coal miner was killed early Friday morning, while working inside Nolo Mine in Buffington Township. Indiana state police believe the miner's death can be attributed to power cables that interfered with the proper use of a feeder, which is designed to load coal on a conveyor belt carrying the coal outside of the mine. Some suspect that the cables fell on the feeder's controls, causing the machine startup movements to unexpectedly swing towards the miner, crushing his body against the wall inside the mine. The man was pronounced dead at the scene with fatal injuries to his abdomen and chest.

Click here to read the report of the incident at Indianagazette.com.

July 11, 2008

Indiana Motorcycle Helmet Law Debated

The chicagotribune.com reported recently that more Indiana motorcycle deaths has caused a renewed debate over Indiana's lack of a mandatory motorcycle helmet law. According to the report, while Indiana does not have a mandatory motorcycle helmet law, 20 states currently do. The Indianapolis based Indiana Criminal Justice Institute states that since April of this year, at least 12 Indiana motorcycle crashes have resulted in deaths and motorcycle deaths have risen 80 percent in the last 10 years.

Click here to review the complete article from the chicagotribune.com.

July 10, 2008

Spencer County Car Accident Results in Death of Two Teens

Tristatehomepage.com reported Wednesday evening that two teens were killed in a motor vehicle accident U.S. Highway 231 just south of Gentryville Wednesday morning. The report explained that the two teens were lifeguards on their way to work when the accident occurred.

The teen driver was attempting to pass a motor vehicle on the left hand side of the highway when the car collided head on with a mini-van that was oncoming from the opposite direction. At the time of the accident, the teens' car was approaching a hill crest that made them unable to see the oncoming mini-van. At that location, the highway was marked as a "no passing" zone.

Click here to read the article at tristatehomepage.com.

July 8, 2008

Railroad Crossing Laws in Indiana

Under Indiana law, when a person driving a vehicle that is approaching a railroad crossing, that person must stop within fifty feet but not less than fifteen feet from the nearest track of railroad and may not proceed until safe to do so when: 1) a clearly visible electric or mechanical signal device gives warning of the immediate approach of a train, 2) a crossing gate is lowered or when a human flagman gives or continues to give a signal of the approach or passage of a train, 3) a railroad train approaching within one thousand five hundred (1,500) feet of a highway crossing emits an audible signal and because of speed or nearness to the crossing is an immediate hazard, and 4) an approaching train is plainly visible and is in hazardous proximity to the crossing. See IC 9-21-8-39.

Additionally, motor vehicle drivers have a duty under IC 9-21-5-4 to reduce their speed as necessary at railroad crossings in order to avoid colliding with people, vehicles, or other conveyances on or near the intersection.