Edward E. Bell, M.D. v. Joan Barmore and Lew G. Barmore, Individually and as Husband and Wife (mem. dec.)
22A01-1706-CT-1368
| Ind. Ct. App. | Nov 21, 2017Background
- In 2014 a medical-malpractice claim by Joan and Lew Barmore was submitted to a medical review panel, which in April 2016 unanimously found Dr. Edward E. Bell breached the standard of care and that his conduct was a factor in Joan Barmore’s injuries.
- The Barmores then sued Dr. Bell in state court and moved for summary judgment on liability and causation; the trial court granted summary judgment for the Barmores, leaving only damages for trial.
- Dr. Bell did not dispute breach of care on appeal but challenged the trial court’s holding that causation was established as a matter of law.
- Dr. Bell relied on an affidavit from orthopedic surgeon George E. Quill, Jr., which opined that (1) Joan had preexisting, significant degenerative arthritis and (2) damages attributable to Dr. Bell’s care were speculative because arthrodesis likely would have been required eventually.
- The trial court rejected Dr. Quill’s affidavit as insufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact on causation; the Court of Appeals reviewed that decision under Indiana’s summary-judgment standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Barmore) | Defendant's Argument (Bell) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether causation was a genuine issue precluding summary judgment | Medical review panel’s unanimous finding that Dr. Bell’s conduct was a causative factor establishes no genuine issue of causation | Dr. Bell proffers Dr. Quill’s affidavit asserting preexisting severe arthritis and that damages from Bell’s care are speculative, which should create a factual dispute on causation | Held for plaintiffs: Quill’s affidavit does not create a genuine issue on causation; it addresses timing/amount of damages, not whether Bell’s conduct was a causative factor |
| Sufficiency of an expert affidavit that does not explicitly state review of records | Panel finding shifts burden to defendant to present specific expert evidence creating factual dispute | Quill’s affidavit implicitly shows review of records and states causation is speculative | Court: implicit review is acceptable, but Quill’s opinions are focused on damages/timing and do not rebut panel’s causation finding |
Key Cases Cited
- Oelling v. Rao, 593 N.E.2d 189 (Ind. 1992) (summary judgment standard)
- Siner v. Kindred Hosp. Ltd. P’ship, 51 N.E.3d 1184 (Ind. 2016) (medical review panel opinion ordinarily sufficient to meet plaintiff’s initial summary-judgment burden)
- Scripture v. Roberts, 51 N.E.3d 248 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (burden shift to defendant to designate expert evidence creating genuine issue)
- Perry v. Driehorst, 808 N.E.2d 765 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (requirements for expert affidavits opposing summary judgment)
- Hoosier Health Sys., Inc. v. St. Francis Hosp. & Health Ctrs., 796 N.E.2d 383 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (courts should not elevate form over substance in affidavit sufficiency analysis)
- Mills v. Berrios, 851 N.E.2d 1066 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (elements of medical malpractice claim)