KD EX REL. KD v. Chambers
951 N.E.2d 855
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- K.D., a two-year-old, received an excessive intravenous Benadryl dose (125 mg vs 12.5 mg) from Nurse Chambers, resulting in tremors and seizure-like activity.
- Campbell sued on behalf of K.D. and herself for medical malpractice; the case proceeded after submission to a Medical Review Panel that found a breach by Chambers and Riley Hospital but only temporary harm.
- Plaintiffs filed a complaint in Marion Superior Court in 2007; after discovery, trial was scheduled for October 2010.
- Defendants moved to exclude toxicologist Daniel McCoy's expert testimony and to bar evidence of negligent infliction of emotional distress and other alleged breaches not presented to the Review Panel.
- The trial court granted all three motions, and the plaintiffs pursued an interlocutory appeal; the Court of Appeals reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings.
- On appeal, the court held: (i) McCoy's testimony should not have been categorically excluded without an Evidence Rule 702 hearing; (ii) negligent infliction of emotional distress was not sufficiently pleaded; (iii) evidence of breaches beyond the panel issues was excluded, but evidence as to the rate of Benadryl administration could be admitted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether McCoy's testimony was properly excluded | McCoy's toxicology expertise qualifies him to testify on Benadryl effects and should be heard after an 702 hearing. | McCoy is not sufficiently qualified as a medical expert to opine on medical causation. | Abuse of discretion; remand for an Evidence Rule 702 hearing. |
| Whether Campbell's negligent infliction of emotional distress claim was properly excluded | NIED is available; Campbell sufficiently pleaded emotional distress from witnessing the overdose. | NIED was not properly pleaded or pleaded at all; should be excluded. | No abuse; claim not sufficiently pleaded. |
| Whether evidence of other breaches of the standard of care not presented to the Review Panel was admissible | Additional breaches beyond the Benadryl overdose should be admissible if supported by pleading and panel submission. | Only breaches presented to the Review Panel may be litigated; others must be excluded. | Excludes other breaches not presented to the Panel, but permits evidence that the rate of Benadryl administration breached the standard of care; remand for revised order. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hannan v. Pest Control Servs., Inc., 734 N.E.2d 674 (Ind.Ct.App.2000) (medical causation questions require expertise; not always exclusive to physicians)
- Clarian Health Partners, Inc. v. Wagler, 925 N.E.2d 388 (Ind.Ct.App.2010) (physician qualification for causation testimony; expert gatekeeping)
- Bennett v. Richmond, 932 N.E.2d 704 (Ind.Ct.App.2010) (supreme court transfer; distinguishing training of experts)
- Miller v. Mem'l Hosp. of South Bend, Inc., 679 N.E.2d 1329 (Ind.1997) (no requirement to detail every theory in medical review panel submission)
- Ollis v. Knecht, 751 N.E.2d 825 (Ind.Ct.App.2001) (pretrial Rule 702 hearing considerations)
- State v. Rankin, 260 Ind. 228 (Ind.1959) (notice pleading standard in pleading sufficiency analysis)
- Putnam County Hosp. v. Sells, 619 N.E.2d 968 (Ind.Ct.App.1993) (Med Mal Act: panel evidence governs standard-of-care issues)
- Patel v. Barker, 742 N.E.2d 28 (Ind.Ct.App.2001) (malpractice damages and MMA considerations)
- Schmidt v. State, 816 N.E.2d 925 (Ind.Ct.App.2004) (toxicology expert testimony limitations)
- Person v. Shipley, 949 N.E.2d 386 (Ind.Ct.App.2011) (Ph.D. biomedical engineering expert qualified on technical causation)