956 N.E.2d 1144
Ind. Ct. App.2011Background
- Ostrowski and Phyllis Ostrowski sued MDC and FMMS for negligence over a doorway incident at the Merrillville Dialysis Center on March 23, 2004.
- Ostrowski reached for the interior door handle when the door was pushed open from inside, injuring his right hand.
- ER T Eric Ivasieko, an EMT employed by FMMS, exited through the door to retrieve equipment when the incident occurred.
- A jury trial in August 2010 found MDC and FMMS not liable, with judgment entered August 19, 2010.
- Ostrowski appealed September 2010, challenging a sudden-emergency instruction, late expert disclosures, and a lay witness testifying as an expert.
- The appellate record is sparse, limiting review of the trial court’s evidentiary rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sudden emergency instruction waiver | Ostrowski argues lack of sufficient evidence; instruction undue | Appellees contend record insufficient to show error | Waived due to incomplete transcript record |
| Timeliness of expert disclosure | Disclosures were untimely and prejudicial | Disclosures were timely; court acted within discretion | No abuse of discretion; no reversible error |
| Lay witness testimony as expert | Ringelsten improperly offered as expert | Ringelsten properly allowed as skilled lay witness | Trial court did not abuse discretion; testimony permissible as skilled lay witness |
Key Cases Cited
- Collins v. Rambo, 831 N.E.2d 241 (Ind.Ct.App.2005) (sudden-emergency factors for jury instruction)
- In re Walker, 665 N.E.2d 586 (Ind.1996) (transcript reliance and waiver considerations)
- Kocher v. Getz, 824 N.E.2d 671 (Ind.2005) (transcript and appellate review standards)
- Fields v. Conforti, 868 N.E.2d 507 (Ind.Ct.App.2007) (transcript reliance in appeals)
- Linton v. Davis, 887 N.E.2d 960 (Ind.Ct.App.2008) (skilled witness framework under Rule 701)
- Kubsch v. State, 784 N.E.2d 905 (Ind.Ct.App.2003) (Rule 701/702 distinctions for testimony)
- Gary Cmty. Sch. Corp. v. Boyd, 890 N.E.2d 794 (Ind.Ct.App.2008) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)