Gipson v. United States
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 1573
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Gipson, a federal inmate, sued under the Federal Tort Claims Act for complications from neck surgery arising after the prison's staff allegedly failed to follow a medical directive to stop blood thinners at least five days before the operation.
- A health company notified the prison staff in writing to stop all blood thinners five days before the June 28, 2006 surgery; Gipson continued taking aspirin.
- The operation occurred at a hospital outside the prison; internal bleeding occurred during surgery, with evidence suggesting aspirin contributed to the bleeding.
- Indiana law requires expert testimony to prove medical malpractice unless the breach is obvious to laypersons; the district court granted summary judgment for the government because Gipson lacked expert testimony on standard of care.
- The court analyzed whether Indiana’s expert-testimony rule applies in FTCA cases and whether the breach (stopping aspirin) was obviously required, given that the five-day cessation is supported by literature.
- The Seventh Circuit reversed, holding that the Indiana rule applies and that the breach was obvious enough to support liability, and that causation could be shown with admissible expert evidence indicating aspirin stoppage caused the complications.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Indiana malpractice rule on expert testimony governs FTCA case | Gipson argues Indiana rule applies to malpractice in FTCA case. | United States contends federal common law or absence of expert-proof requirement may apply. | Indiana rule applies. |
| Whether prison staff's failure to instruct stoppage of aspirin breaches standard of care | Staff should have told Gipson to stop aspirin five days before surgery. | No explicit instruction; absence of warning may not prove breach without expert input. | Yes, breach evident to laypersons; staff should have informed. |
| Whether causation can be established without conflicting expert testimony | Surgeon opined cessation caused complications; expert evidence supports causation. | Causation may be contested and requires expert analysis if technical. | Causation supported by admissible expert evidence; conflict unresolved. |
Key Cases Cited
- Narducci v. Tedrow, 736 N.E.2d 1288 (Ind.App.2000) (expert testimony requirement in Indiana medical malpractice)
- Harris v. Raymond, 715 N.E.2d 388 (Ind.1999) (expert testimony standard inline with Indiana law)
- Culbertson v. Mernitz, 602 N.E.2d 98 (Ind.1992) (expert testimony when required in malpractice)
- Musser v. Gentiva Health Services, 356 F.3d 751 (7th Cir.2004) (Indiana law on expert testimony in malpractice; impact on FTCA)
- Gil v. Reed, 535 F.3d 551 (7th Cir.2008) (breach where warning of medical risk is required)
- Ledford v. Sullivan, 105 F.3d 354 (7th Cir.1997) (admissibility and impact of expert testimony in medical issues)
- Murrey v. United States, 73 F.3d 1448 (7th Cir.1996) (substantive vs. procedural rule distinctions in malpractice)
- Gacek v. American Airlines, Inc., 614 F.3d 298 (7th Cir.2010) (substantive-limiting procedural rules in federal practice aligning with state areas of law)
- Carter v. United States, 982 F.2d 1141 (7th Cir.1992) (forum-specific considerations in FTCA-related malpractice)