Johnson v. Wait
2011 Ind. App. LEXIS 626
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Johnson gave birth via cesarean at St. Mary's Medical Center Welborn (SMMC); post-op shoulder pain developed May 2–7, 2000.
- Miller (neurologist) and Wait (obstetric/other physicians) diagnosed Johnson with conversion reaction; no complete physical exam prior to May 7 discharge.
- MRI showed cervical disk protrusions; psychiatric consult followed; Johnson diagnosed with likely personality disorder.
- Johnson later diagnosed with bilateral shoulder dislocations and an avulsion fracture; dislocations reduced May 19, 2000.
- Medical Review Panel found only Wait failed to meet standard of care; plaintiffs amended complaint in 2007; trial 2009.
- Trial court granted partial directed verdict for some defendants; jury returned a defense verdict; plaintiffs appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Contributory negligence instruction sufficiency | Johnson claims instruction flawed/inadequate and unsupported by evidence. | Miller contends instruction proper as standard contributory negligence. | Instruction found incorrect/incomplete but evidence supported giving; waiver precludes reversal. |
| Res ipsa loquitur instruction | Johnson/Buse argue res ipsa should have been given. | SMMC/Miller contend no basis; insufficient exclusive control evidence. | Court refused res ipsa instruction; dearth of evidence of exclusive control and timing. |
| Admission of defense causation testimony | Bonnarens’ causation opinions should be excluded due to discovery timeline. | Disclosures allowed; IME report read; testimony within permissible scope. | No abuse of discretion; delayed disclosure did not prejudice Johnson and Buse. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nelson v. Metcalf, 435 N.E.2d 39 (Ind. Ct. App. 1982) (objectives of Rule 51(C) objections; preservation by objection)
- Hi-Speed Auto Wash, Inc. v. Simeri, 346 N.E.2d 607 (Ind. Ct. App. 1976) (contributory negligence rests with defendant; elements required)
- Joyner-Wentland v. Waggoner, 890 N.E.2d 730 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (standard for reviewing jury instructions; three-part test)
- Widmeyer v. Faulk, 612 N.E.2d 1119 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993) (elements of res ipsa loquitur)
- Syfu v. Quinn, 826 N.E.2d 699 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (res ipsa loquitur; mixed question of law and fact)
- Bouras v. State, 423 N.E.2d 741 (Ind. Ct. App. 1981) (limit upon tendered instructions; good cause standard)
- Piwowar v. Washington Lumber & Coal Co., 405 N.E.2d 576 (Ind. Ct. App. 1980) (instruction limits and preservation)
- Manning v. Allgood, 412 N.E.2d 811 (Ind. Ct. App. 1980) (trial procedure and instruction handling)
- Lehman v. State, 926 N.E.2d 35 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (fundamental error doctrine in civil cases)
- David v. State, 669 N.E.2d 390 (Ind. 1996) (fundamental error standard)
- Carter v. State, 754 N.E.2d 877 (Ind. 2001) (fundamental due process concerns in error analysis)