973 N.E.2d 46
Ind. Ct. App.2012Background
- Tucker sued Dr. Harrison for medical malpractice after bilateral ovarian cystectomy allegedly caused ovarian failure and infertility.
- The surgery occurred October 1, 2004; initial recovery was fine, but Tucker later learned she became permanently sterile.
- Medical review panel found no breach of standard of care; case proceeded to trial.
- During discovery, Tucker sought to question witnesses about financial bias related to the Patient Compensation Fund; the court quashed these requests.
- At trial, Tucker sought to admit Dr. Freeman’s epidemiological testimony on causation, which the court partially excluded, and the court declined a res ipsa loquitur instruction.
- Jury returned a verdict for Harrison; Tucker appeals on expert testimony exclusion, bias questioning, and res ipsa loquitur instruction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the expert’s probability testimony was admissible. | Tucker asserts Freeman’s epidemiological causation testimony is valid and relevant. | Harrison maintains the testimony is improper for causation in a medical malpractice case and unreliable. | Exclusion of Dr. Freeman’s probability testimony was not an abuse of discretion. |
| Whether Tucker could question witnesses about system-wide bias in Indiana physicians. | Bias evidence from all doctors matters for causation and credibility. | Rule 411 and 403 exclude such insurance/bias evidence as prejudicial and not probative. | Trial court did not err in excluding bias testimony. |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing a res ipsa loquitur instruction. | Res ipsa loquitur should apply where negligence is obvious from the surgery. | The facts do not support res ipsa loquitur; expert dispute exists on causation. | No abuse; res ipsa loquitur instruction denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bennett v. Richmond, 960 N.E.2d 782 (Ind. 2012) (gatekeeping of expert testimony; credibility left to jury)
- Hannan v. Pest Control Servs., 734 N.E.2d 674 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (expert may testify beyond own field with competency)
- Wallace v. Meadow Acres Manufactured Hous., Inc., 730 N.E.2d 809 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (gatekeeper role under Rule 702; reliability factors)
- DeLuca v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 911 F.2d 941 (3d Cir. 1990) (epidemiological evidence is circumstantial; does not prove causation for a specific plaintiff)
- Wright v. Carter, 622 N.E.2d 170 (Ind. 1993) (res ipsa loquitur for obvious breaches not requiring expert aid)
- Ross v. Olson, 825 N.E.2d 890 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (application of res ipsa loquitur; exclusive control and kind of harm)
- Johnson v. Wait, 947 N.E.2d 951 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (standard for reviewing tendered jury instructions)
- Syfu v. Quinn, 826 N.E.2d 699 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (res ipsa loquitur; limits in medical context)