Kevin T. Scripture, M.D., Richard Mangan, O.D., Judy D. Risch, O.D., and Whitewater Eye Centers, LLC v. Julia and Steven Roberts
51 N.E.3d 248
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Julia and Steven Roberts submitted a medical-malpractice claim to a medical review panel, which unanimously found the defendant doctors breached the standard of care and that the breach was a factor in Julia Roberts’ resulting corneal injury.
- The Robertses sued for damages; the doctors answered denying material allegations.
- The Robertses moved for summary judgment, designating the medical-review panel opinion to establish breach and causation.
- The doctors responded with their own affidavits stating (in conclusory terms) they met the applicable standard of care and were not a cause of the injury.
- The day before the summary-judgment hearing the doctors sought leave to supplement their response with expanded affidavits adding factual detail about care provided.
- The trial court denied the motion to supplement and granted the Robertses’ motion for summary judgment; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the doctors’ affidavits raised a genuine issue of material fact to rebut the medical-review panel and defeat summary judgment | The panel opinion establishes breach and causation; doctors failed to produce sufficient expert proof | Their affidavits (their own sworn statements) are sufficient to create a factual dispute and defeat summary judgment | Held: Doctors’ affidavits were conclusory and lacked specific factual basis about standard of care or how their treatment complied; insufficient to defeat summary judgment |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying leave to supplement the doctors’ response the day before the hearing | Supplementation merely cured earlier technical deficiencies and provided necessary facts | Late supplementation was allowed to ensure a fair adjudication | Held: Denial was not an abuse of discretion—supplementation was untimely (filed the day before hearing, months after initial response) and trial court acted within discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Mills v. Berrios, 851 N.E.2d 1066 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (unanimous medical-review opinion shifts burden; non-movant must present expert testimony with factual basis to oppose summary judgment)
- Bunch v. Tiwari, 711 N.E.2d 844 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (expert affidavit must link factual observations to opinion on causation to defeat summary judgment)
- Oelling v. Rao, 593 N.E.2d 189 (Ind. 1992) (affirming summary judgment where expert affidavit failed to state applicable standard of care or that defendant fell below it)
- Hughley v. State, 15 N.E.3d 1000 (Ind. 2014) (an affidavit that specifically controverts the movant’s prima facie case can defeat summary judgment—but facts must be designated)
- Whitlock v. Steel Dynamics, Inc., 35 N.E.3d 265 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (affiants must provide specific factual details supporting conclusions, not mere conclusory statements)