991 N.E.2d 987
Ind. Ct. App.2013Background
- Between March 19 and April 10, 2009, Halterman was incarcerated in Adams County Jail and sought medical care for a buttock abscess that later was diagnosed as MRSA and required multiple surgeries, including a colostomy.
- Nurse practitioner examined Halterman on April 6 (noted small raised area with limited redness) and again on April 8, when he was referred for incision and drainage; April 10 exam led to ER visit and MRSA diagnosis.
- Halterman sued the jail defendants and Sheriff Padgett for negligence in treating the abscess; summary judgment was granted to all defendants, including later to Sheriff Padgett.
- Halterman moved to strike the affidavit of defense expert Dr. Bev House; the trial court denied the motion and relied on Dr. House’s affidavit in granting summary judgment to Padgett.
- The trial court held, and the appellate court affirmed, that Dr. House’s affidavit relied on permissible records and depositions and that Halterman failed to designate evidence showing causation (i.e., that any act or omission by Sheriff Padgett caused his MRSA and resulting injuries).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying motion to strike Dr. House’s affidavit | Dr. House’s opinions are speculative, based on insufficient or inadmissible evidence | Affidavit is based on medical records and depositions experts customarily rely on | No abuse of discretion; affidavit admissible |
| Whether Sheriff Padgett is entitled to summary judgment on negligence | Jail conditions and delayed treatment caused MRSA and injuries; factual disputes exist about timing and abscess size | Designated evidence (House affidavit) negates causation; no evidence showing Padgett’s actions caused injury | Summary judgment affirmed for Sheriff Padgett; plaintiff failed to show causation |
Key Cases Cited
- Kroger Co. v. Plonski, 930 N.E.2d 1 (trial court’s striking decisions reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Bunch v. Tiwari, 711 N.E.2d 844 (experts may base opinions on types of evidence reasonably relied upon in their field)
- Burp v. State, 612 N.E.2d 169 (expert must have sufficient facts or data to form opinion)
- Lean v. Reed, 876 N.E.2d 1104 (summary judgment standard)
- Jackson v. Scheible, 902 N.E.2d 807 (construe facts and inferences for nonmoving party on summary judgment)
- Mangold ex rel. Mangold v. Ind. Dep’t of Natural Res., 756 N.E.2d 970 (appellate review limited to designated materials)
- Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Davis, 860 N.E.2d 915 (affirm on any legal basis supported by designated evidence)
- Midwest Commerce Banking Co. v. Livings, 608 N.E.2d 1010 (causation cannot be proved by allegation alone)