49 N.E.3d 647
Ind. Ct. App.2016Background
- In October 2008 Debra Sorrells saw Dr. Karen Reid-Renner; bloodwork showed elevated WBC (14.8) that was not communicated or followed up by Reid-Renner.
- In November 2009 Sorrells presented to another physician with a much higher WBC (36) and was referred to oncologist Dr. Mark Dayton, who urgently treated her for what initially appeared to be aggressive lymphoma (R-CHOP chemotherapy, port placement, long-term Rituxan).
- Pathology later revealed a lower-grade lymphoproliferative disorder; Sorrells alleged Reid-Renner’s failure to communicate/monitor caused a 13‑month diagnostic delay that led to unnecessary aggressive treatment and emotional damages.
- A medical review panel unanimously found Reid‑Renner breached the standard of care but opined the breach was not a causative factor in Sorrells’s damages.
- Reid‑Renner moved for summary judgment based on the panel’s opinion; Sorrells designated expert testimony (Dr. Dayton’s deposition) asserting earlier monitoring would likely have led to Rituxan alone (no chemo, no port, less maintenance therapy).
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Reid‑Renner; the Court of Appeals reversed, holding Dr. Dayton’s testimony created a genuine issue of material fact on causation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sorrells produced expert evidence sufficient to rebut the medical review panel’s causation opinion and defeat summary judgment | Dr. Dayton testified that earlier monitoring/testing would likely have led to less aggressive treatment (Rituxan alone), avoiding chemotherapy, port placement, and prolonged maintenance—so Reid‑Renner’s breach probably caused unnecessary procedures and emotional harm | The panel concluded breach did not cause Sorrells’s damages; summary judgment appropriate because the delay did not affect prognosis or life expectancy and the panel’s causation opinion should stand | Reversed summary judgment. Dr. Dayton’s deposition created a genuine issue of material fact on causation (sufficient to rebut the panel’s opinion), so the case must proceed to trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Alldredge v. Good Samaritan Home, Inc., 9 N.E.3d 1257 (Ind. 2014) (standard of review for summary judgment and appellate de novo review)
- Hughley v. State, 15 N.E.3d 1000 (Ind. 2014) (explains Indiana’s heightened summary judgment burden and policy favoring trial of marginal cases)
- Allen v. Hinchman, 20 N.E.3d 863 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (medical malpractice elements and need for expert testimony when panel finds no breach or no causation)
- Thomson v. St. Joseph Reg'l Med. Ctr., 26 N.E.3d 89 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (expert testimony must create genuine issue of material fact on proximate causation to withstand summary judgment)
- Hassan v. Begley, 836 N.E.2d 303 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (when panel finds no causation, burden shifts to plaintiff to rebut with expert testimony)
- Siner v. Kindred Hosp. Ltd. P’ship, 33 N.E.3d 377 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (preponderance standard for causation; expert opinions of ‘probable’ or ‘more likely than not’ satisfy causation burden)
- Spangler v. Bechtel, 958 N.E.2d 458 (Ind. 2011) (modified impact rule for negligent infliction of emotional distress arising from directly caused physical impact)