Lloyd G. Perry v. Anonymous Physican 1, Alias Medical Group 1, Inc., Anonymous Physican 2
2014 Ind. App. LEXIS 635
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- In June 2010 Lloyd G. Perry (pro se) filed a proposed medical-malpractice complaint and amended it in January 2011 to add additional defendants (multiple physicians, medical practices, hospitals, and other providers).
- A medical review panel unanimously found all defendants except one hospital met the applicable standard of care; any breach by that hospital was found not to have caused Perry’s injuries.
- The Providers moved for summary judgment relying on the panel opinion; Perry filed a response but the record does not show he designated expert testimony to rebut the panel’s findings.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the Providers; Perry’s motion to correct error was denied and he appealed pro se.
- Perry argued (among other things) the Medical Malpractice Act was unconstitutional and referenced res ipsa loquitur, but he offered no developed argument or expert proof to show a genuine issue of material fact.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was proper after medical review panel found no breach (or no causal breach) | Perry contended the panel/process was invalid and suggested res ipsa loquitur; generally claimed malpractice | Providers relied on unanimous panel opinion showing no breach (or no causation) and moved for summary judgment | Summary judgment affirmed: panel opinion satisfied defendants’ burden; Perry failed to present expert evidence creating a genuine issue |
| Whether Perry could defeat summary judgment without expert testimony by filing an affidavit (Hughley) | Perry implicitly relied on pro se filings and argued panel was invalid; did not present expert affidavit controverting panel | Providers argued medical negligence requires expert proof to create a factual dispute when panel finds no breach | Court held Hughley (perfunctory affidavit defeats SJ) does not displace malpractice rule: expert proof is generally required in medical malpractice cases |
| Whether res ipsa loquitur applied to avoid expert proof | Perry mentioned res ipsa loquitur in context of panel invalidity but did not argue it applied to alleged malpractice facts | Providers maintained negligence questions require medical expert testimony unless negligence is obvious | Court declined to apply res ipsa: Perry did not argue or develop this exception and did not show obvious negligence |
| Whether appellate arguments were waived by inadequate briefing | Perry raised constitutionality and other claims but provided no developed legal argument or citations | Providers noted Perry’s briefing failed Rule 46(A)(8)(a) requirements | Court treated inadequately briefed arguments as waived and declined to consider them |
Key Cases Cited
- Oelling v. Rao, 593 N.E.2d 189 (Ind. 1992) (summary judgment standard and nonmovant’s burden to present specific facts)
- Stafford v. Szymanowski, 13 N.E.3d 890 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (medical review panel opinion shifts burden; plaintiff generally must present expert testimony to create a factual dispute)
- Hughley v. State, 15 N.E.3d 1000 (Ind. 2014) (perfunctory self‑serving affidavit can defeat summary judgment in civil forfeiture context, but court limits its application here)
- Ziobron v. Squires, 907 N.E.2d 118 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (res ipsa loquitur applies only where negligence is so obvious that laypersons need no expert testimony)
- Thacker v. Wentzel, 797 N.E.2d 342 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (appellate briefing requirements; pro se litigants held to same rules)