Indiana Supreme Court Sets Forth New Test for Expert Affidavits in Indiana Medical Malpractice Cases
Barsumian Armiger Blog » Medical Malpractice
by Barsumian Armiger
3w ago
We previously wrote a personal injury and medical malpractice blog about the decision of the Indiana Court of Appeals in Korakis v. Mem’l Hosp. of S. Bend in which the court affirmed summary judgment for three medical defendants based upon the insufficiency of the patient’s expert’s affidavit submitted to refute a negative medical review panel opinion. In the case, Penny Korakis (Korakis) suffered an occult radial fracture of her left elbow, which went undiagnosed and untreated and ultimately required corrective surgery. Korakis filed a lawsuit against an ER doctor, the hospital where she had ..read more
Visit website
Immunity Under Indiana’s Worker’s Compensation Act Does Not Bar Claims Against Co-Employee Physicians Arising Out of Doctor-Patient Relationships
Barsumian Armiger Blog » Medical Malpractice
by Barsumian Armiger
5M ago
The Indiana Court of Appeals recently considered whether a nurse who suffered a workplace injury can pursue a medical malpractice claim against a co-employee physician who treated the nurse for her injuries despite the exclusivity provision of Indiana’s Worker’s Compensation Act (WCA). In Gardner v. Anonymous Physician, Laurie Gardner (“Gardner”) contracted scabies from another patient while working for a hospital. Gardner filed a worker’s compensation claim against the hospital, which was subsequently resolved. Gardner also filed a medical malpractice claim against a co-employee physician, wh ..read more
Visit website
Indiana Court of Appeals Affirms Trial Court Order Directing Patients to Redact Portions of Their Medical Review Panel Submissions
Barsumian Armiger Blog » Medical Malpractice
by Barsumian Armiger
7M ago
The Indiana Court of Appeals recently affirmed a trial court’s order directing patients in related medical malpractice claims to redact portions of their submissions tendered to medical review panels formed to review the cases under the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act. In Bojko v. Anonymous Physician, 215 N.E.3d 376 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023), six patients filed medical malpractice claims against a physician and the physician’s practice (the “physician”). After medical review panels were formed in each of the cases, the patients tendered separate, but in parts similar, submissions to the panels. Amo ..read more
Visit website
Indiana Supreme Court Holds Mentally Ill Patient Who Pled Guilty to Voluntary Manslaughter Cannot Succeed in Claims Against Health Care Providers
Barsumian Armiger Blog » Medical Malpractice
by Barsumian Armiger
8M ago
The Indiana Supreme Court recently examined whether an individual who pleaded guilty but mentally ill to voluntary manslaughter can sue his mental health providers for negligence and emotional distress. The case presented quite a complicated procedural and factual history and, ultimately, generated a strongly worded dissent by the Chief Justice. By way of background, Plaintiff, Zachary Miller (Miller) pleaded guilty but mentally ill to the voluntary manslaughter of his grandfather, which left his grandmother, Betty Miller, widowed. The conduct and killing arising out of Miller’s actions genera ..read more
Visit website
Indiana Supreme Court Recognizes Claim for Public Disclosure of Private Facts
Barsumian Armiger Blog » Medical Malpractice
by Barsumian Armiger
1y ago
We previously wrote about a decision by the Indiana Court of Appeals regarding a hospital employee’s unauthorized access of patient records in Community Health Network, Inc. v. McKenzie here. However, the Indiana Supreme Court later granted transfer in McKenzie, thus vacating the Court of Appeals’ decision. The disclosing employee, Katrina Gray, was previously employed by an orthopedic group along with one of the eventual plaintiffs, Heather McKenzie. Heather was supervised by Katrina, who was the group’s medical records coordinator. Katrina also introduced Heather to her stepson and Heather a ..read more
Visit website
Indiana Court of Appeals Finds Affidavit of Patient’s Expert Insufficient to Survive Summary Judgment in Medical Malpractice Case
Barsumian Armiger Blog » Medical Malpractice
by Barsumian Armiger
1y ago
The Indiana Court of Appeals recently affirmed a trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of three healthcare providers in a medical malpractice case finding the affidavit of the patient’s expert was insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact to refute a negative opinion of a medical review panel formed to review the case. In Korakis v. Mem’l Hosp. of S. Bend, Penny Korakis (Korakis) was involved in a car crash and went to Memorial Hospital of South Bend (the Hospital) where she was seen by emergency care physician David Halperin, M.D. (Dr. Halperin). Korakis reported pain ..read more
Visit website
Indiana Court of Appeals Abandons Recently Espoused “Current Test” as to Applicability of Indiana’s Medical Malpractice Act
Barsumian Armiger Blog » Medical Malpractice
by Barsumian Armiger
1y ago
The Indiana Court of Appeals recently backtracked on one of its more recent opinions on the applicability of the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act (MMA) and held in Doe v. Indiana Dep’t of Ins. that a plaintiff’s claims of sexual battery by a nurse while hospitalized do not fall under the MMA. In Doe, Jane Doe (Doe) was admitted to Indiana University Ball Memorial Hospital (the Hospital) after suffering a stroke. One of the hospital’s nurses, Nathanial Mosco (Mosco), sexually assaulted Doe and was thereafter convicted of battery. Doe filed a lawsuit against Mosco and the Hospital in court and be ..read more
Visit website
Indiana Court of Appeals Finds Medical Malpractice Claimant Failed to Satisfy Second Prong of McKeen v. Turner Regarding Evidence of Malpractice Theory Raised Post-Panel
Barsumian Armiger Blog » Medical Malpractice
by Barsumian Armiger
1y ago
The Indiana Court of Appeals recently affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of an ophthalmologist in a medical malpractice case based on the Court’s precedent in McKeen v. Turner. In Radil v. Long, Ardith Radil and Larry Radil sued Dr. Kuumba Long and his group. Dr. Long had performed cataract surgery on Ardith’s right eye. Three days after surgery Ardith saw Dr. Long and noted vision problems. Dr. Long prescribed eye drops and told her to call him if she had any changes, decreased vision, or concerns. Six days after surgery Ardith called Dr. Long and reported pain and decreased visi ..read more
Visit website
Indiana Supreme Court Finds Medical Malpractice Claimant’s Right to Amend Timely-Filed Complaint after Statute of Limitations to Add EMTALA Claim Against Hospital Is Not Preempted by EMTALA
Barsumian Armiger Blog » Medical Malpractice
by Barsumian Armiger
1y ago
The Indiana Supreme Court recently reversed the Indiana Court of Appeals’ denial of a medical malpractice claimant’s request to amend her complaint to allege a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd, a federal law also known as the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (“EMTALA”). The claimant, Betty Miller, had sued various health-care providers under medical malpractice theories claiming her mentally ill grandson, Zachary Miller, should not have been released from Community Howard Regional Health Hospital’s (“Community Howard”) emergency room after he had arrived at Community Howard’s emergency ..read more
Visit website
Indiana Supreme Court Adopts Restatement (Second) of Agency Section 267 and Finds Genuine Issue of Material Fact as to Apparent Agency Relationship Between Two Medical Providers Despite No Contractual Relationship
Barsumian Armiger Blog » Medical Malpractice
by Barsumian Armiger
1y ago
We recently wrote about the Indiana Supreme Court’s decision in Arrendale v. American Imaging & MRI, LLC in which the Court held that non-hospital medical providers could be responsible for the negligent acts or omissions of their independent contractors through apparent agency. The same day the Court issued its opinion in Arrendale, the Court also issued an opinion in Wilson v. Anonymous Defendant 1 in which it adopted Restatement (Second) of Agency section 267 and held as a matter of first impression that a medical provider can be responsible for the negligent acts or omissions of an app ..read more
Visit website

Follow Barsumian Armiger Blog » Medical Malpractice on FeedSpot

Continue with Google
Continue with Apple
OR