Jane E. Wilson, M.D., and IU Medical Group v. Tyler Lawless b/n/f Mindy R. Lawless
2016 Ind. App. LEXIS 418
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- On Oct. 9, 2008, Dr. Jane Wilson (filling in for the patient’s pediatrician) examined 10‑year‑old Tyler after a percutaneous renal biopsy performed 10 days earlier; Tyler had vomiting, diarrhea, and low‑grade fever. Dr. Wilson diagnosed viral gastroenteritis, ordered a urinalysis (no infection, trace RBCs), examined for flank/abdominal pain and did not order an ultrasound.
- A voicemail from the biopsy physician indicated only periodic/annual follow‑up; Dr. Wilson believed a follow‑up with the biopsy physician would occur and did not confirm or schedule follow‑up herself. Mother (Mindy) did not get an earlier follow‑up appointment after the visit.
- Tyler’s vomiting persisted; he developed flank pain by December 2008. On Jan. 22, 2009 Tyler saw another pediatrician (Dr. Kosten) who referred him to gastroenterology; an abdominal ultrasound on March 30, 2009 revealed a urinoma causing obstructive nephropathy.
- On May 5, 2009 Tyler’s left kidney was removed. In Dec. 2013 Tyler (by his mother as next friend) sued Dr. Wilson and IU Medical Group for medical malpractice; the trial court conducted a bench trial in July 2015 and entered judgment for Tyler awarding $255,000.
- The trial court found Dr. Wilson breached the pediatric standard of care by failing to take a complete history and by not confirming/scheduling prompt follow‑up or ordering an ultrasound for less common post‑biopsy complications; the court rejected defendants’ attempt to impute Mindy’s alleged negligence to Tyler and rejected superseding‑cause argument.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mindy’s alleged failure to obtain follow‑up care constitutes contributory negligence imputed to Tyler | Mindy’s conduct should not bar Tyler; parent’s negligence may not be imputed to a child | Mother’s delay in seeking care was negligent and should bar or reduce Tyler’s recovery by imputation | Court: Parent’s negligence may not be imputed to child in medical malpractice; Tyler’s recovery not barred |
| Whether Mindy’s delay was an intervening/superseding cause breaking causation | Delay was not a superseding cause; defendants caused the harm by breaching care | Mother’s independent failure to seek care was unforeseeable and broke causal chain | Court: No evidence delay was cause sine qua non; not a superseding cause; causation remains with defendants |
| Whether Dr. Wilson breached standard of care and proximately caused loss of kidney | Tyler argued Wilson failed to take complete history, confirm follow‑up or order ultrasound for post‑biopsy complications | Defendants relied on medical‑review panel findings favorable to Wilson and argued alternative causes and contributory negligence | Court: Found by weight of testimony (esp. plaintiff’s pediatric expert) that Wilson breached the pediatric standard and that breach contributed to kidney loss |
Key Cases Cited
- Webb v. Jarvis, 575 N.E.2d 992 (Ind. 1991) (elements of negligence/medical malpractice)
- Vergara by Vergara v. Doan, 593 N.E.2d 185 (Ind. 1992) (standard of care for physicians)
- Yanoff v. Muncy, 688 N.E.2d 1259 (Ind. 1997) (appellate review of findings and conclusions)
- Cavens v. Zaberdac, 849 N.E.2d 526 (Ind. 2006) (contributory negligence defense still available in malpractice actions)
- McSwane v. Bloomington Hosp. and Healthcare Sys., 916 N.E.2d 906 (Ind. 2009) (plaintiff’s contributory negligence operates as complete bar)
- Witte v. Mundy, 820 N.E.2d 128 (Ind. 2005) (comparative‑fault nonparty procedure; parental negligence as nonparty in comparative scheme)
- Scott v. Retz, 916 N.E.2d 252 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (analysis of intervening/superseding causation and foreseeability)
- Peters v. Forster, 804 N.E.2d 736 (Ind. 2004) (when proximate cause becomes a question of law)
- Walker v. Rinck, 604 N.E.2d 591 (Ind. 1992) (discussion of intervening causes and foreseeability)