Jacqueline Wisner, M.D. and The South Bend Clinic, L.L.P. v. Archie L. Laney
2012 Ind. LEXIS 977
| Ind. | 2012Background
- Five-day jury trial in St. Joseph Superior Court resulting in Laney’s $1.75 million verdict against Dr. Wisner and The South Bend Clinic.
- Trial court reduced verdict to $1.25 million under statutory maximum and denied prejudgment interest; prejudgment interest motion denied.
- Laney initially filed suit in 2002; case dismissed without prejudice in 2006; refiled in 2007; trial occurred in 2010.
- Defendants moved for new trial (TR 59/60) alleging misconduct by Laney’s counsel and related issues; trial court denied.
- Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of the new-trial motion but reversed on prejudgment interest; Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer.
- Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of prejudgment interest; held Laney’s 2005 settlement letter did not meet TPIS requirements and that conduct concerns, while troubling, did not mandate a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of a new trial based on counsel misconduct was an abuse of discretion | Laney argues cumulative, prejudicial misconduct denied fair trial | Wisner/Clinic contend misconduct prejudiced defense | No abuse; trial court did not abuse discretion |
| Whether closing argument misconduct warranted a new trial | Closing statements tainted trial; prejudicial | No preserved error; waived by failure to object | Waived; no new trial order affirmed |
| Whether testimony violations of separation-of-witnesses order merits new trial | Dr. Campbell violated separation order; prejudice | Any violation was accidental and not prejudicial | No abuse of discretion; no objectionable conduct shown |
| Whether voir dire questions about insurance or damages tainted jury pool | Questions tainted jurors’ views against claimants | No bad faith; questions permissible in good faith; waiver | Waived but no abuse of discretion; no mistrial ordered |
| Whether prejudgment interest should have been awarded under TPIS | Letter complied with TPIS and timing should trigger interest | Letter untimely; TPIS not mandatory; discretion to deny | Laney's 2005 settlement letter untimely; court within discretion to deny prejudgment interest |
Key Cases Cited
- Outback Steakhouse of Florida, Inc. v. Markley, 856 N.E.2d 65 (Ind. 2006) (abuse-of-discretion standard for Trial Rule 60(B)(3))
- Strack & Van Til, Inc. v. Carter, 803 N.E.2d 666 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (trial court in best position to gauge conduct and prejudice)
- Cahoon v. Cummings, 734 N.E.2d 535 (Ind. 2000) (timing and content requirements for TPIS settlements; 60-day window)
- Wisner v. Laney, 953 N.E.2d 100 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (Court of Appeals on TPIS interpretation and timing)
- Ramsey v. Moore, 959 N.E.2d 246 (Ind. 2012) (medical malpractice procedural steps in Indiana)
- Jordan v. State, 656 N.E.2d 816 (Ind. 1995) (separation-of-witnesses order not abused absent clear proof)
- Turner v. State, 953 N.E.2d 1039 (Ind. 2011) (TPIS discretionary nature of prejudgment interest)
- Hupfer v. Miller, 890 N.E.2d 7 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (review of prejudgment-interest decisions for abuse of discretion)