Kenneth W. Smith and Deb-Anne Smith v. Dermatology Associates of Fort Wayne, P.C. a/k/a Dermatology & Laser Surgery Associates of Fort Wayne, P.C., 977 N.E.2d 1

Smiths sue Dermatology Associates of Fort Wayne, P.C. (DLSA) for medical malpractice after PUVA therapy burns in Dec 2004.
Smith received PUVA treatments from 1994 to 2004; 147 sessions total.
In Dec 2004 Smith suffered extensive UV burns, treated as severe sunburn requiring burn unit care.
Smith alleged exclusive control of the PUVA machine by DLSA and negligence caused the burns.
Medical review panel (2008) found no deviation from standard of care; Smith rejected panel’s conclusion.
Trial court denied summary judgment and held issues for the bench trial; court later denied res ipsa loquitur applicability and entered judgment for DLSA.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether res ipsa loquitur applied to infer negligence	Smiths argued exclusive control of PUVA machine and injury not possible absent negligence	DLSA contends no exclusive control and phototoxic, not necessarily negligent	Affirmed; res ipsa loquitur not applicable

Rector v. Oliver, 809 N.E.2d 887 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (discusses elements of res ipsa loquitur)
Mills v. Berrios, 851 N.E.2d 1066 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (reiterates burdens in medical negligence suits)
Daub v. Daub, 629 N.E.2d 873 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) (evidence must show causation; speculation not enough)
J.W. v. Hendricks Cnty. Office of Family & Children, 697 N.E.2d 480 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (trier of fact resolves conflicting testimony)
Mominee v. King, 629 N.E.2d 1280 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) (burden on appellant in negative judgments)