Hill v. Rhinehart
45 N.E.3d 427
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- John A. Hill underwent urgent CABG in December 1999, received heparin, developed thrombocytopenia suspected to be HIT/HITT, and ultimately required multiple amputations and prolonged critical care.
- Hill settled with Parkview Memorial Hospital for $250,000 and with the Indiana Patient’s Compensation Fund (the Fund) for an aggregate $1.25 million, each release describing the limb losses and related care as arising from negligent care at Parkview.
- Hill later sued four treating physicians (Ryan, Rhinehart, Lloyd, Csicsko) for malpractice alleging their post‑operative management of HIT/HITT caused the limb losses.
- At trial, after Hill rested, the court granted judgment on the evidence (directed verdict) for Drs. Lloyd and Csicsko, finding Hill produced no evidence those doctors caused injuries separate and distinct from those already compensated by the prior settlements.
- The jury returned verdicts for Drs. Ryan and Rhinehart; Hill appealed the directed verdicts, the effect on joint-and-several liability, and the court’s Jury Instruction No. 23 regarding physician liability for diagnostic/treatment errors when reasonable care is exercised.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether judgment on the evidence for Drs. Lloyd and Csicsko was proper | Hill: Evidence showed breaches by Lloyd and Csicsko that proximately caused limb losses via failure to stop heparin/treat HIT, so case should go to jury | Doctors: Hill failed to show their alleged malpractice caused an injury separate and distinct from injuries already satisfied by prior settlements, so directed verdict appropriate | Affirmed — directed verdict proper; Hill did not prove separate and distinct injuries attributable to Lloyd or Csicsko |
| Whether entry of directed verdict prevented Hill from pursuing joint-and-several liability | Hill: Excluding Lloyd and Csicsko prejudiced his ability to hold all physicians jointly liable as collaborating tortfeasors | Doctors: Joint-and-several liability cannot impose liability on defendants who are not themselves shown to be liable; directed verdict did not prejudice presentation of case | Affirmed — no new trial; joint-and-several cannot transfer liability to non‑liable doctors |
| Whether Jury Instruction No. 23 misstated law by saying errors in diagnosis/treatment are not negligence if reasonable care used | Hill: Instruction implies nearly any mistake is non‑negligent, potentially depriving jury of basis to find negligence | Doctors: Instruction correctly states that physicians are not guarantors of outcomes and that a mistaken diagnosis is not negligence if made with reasonable skill and care | Affirmed — instruction is a correct statement of law in medical malpractice and not misleading when read with other instructions |
Key Cases Cited
- Csicsko v. Hill, 808 N.E.2d 80 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (interpreting scope of releases with Fund and Parkview; whether multiple recoveries permitted)
- Miller v. Memorial Hosp. of South Bend, Inc., 679 N.E.2d 1329 (Ind. 1997) (multi‑cap recovery allowed only where separate and distinct injuries arise from separate acts of malpractice)
- Dahlberg v. Ogle, 373 N.E.2d 159 (Ind. 1978) (approving instruction that physicians do not guarantee success of treatment)
- Fall v. White, 449 N.E.2d 628 (Ind. Ct. App. 1983) (physician’s mistaken diagnosis not negligence if reasonable skill and care used)
- LaPorte Cmty. Sch. Corp. v. Rosales, 963 N.E.2d 520 (Ind. 2012) (instructions that create competing reasonable interpretations or list factual scenarios that the court presents as duties can be erroneous)