Penny Korakis v. Memorial Hospital of South Bend, 225 N.E.3d 760

Penny Korakis was treated at Memorial Hospital of South Bend for injuries sustained in an automobile accident by Dr. David A. Halperin (emergency room physician) and later by Dr. Michael R. Messmer (orthopedist).
Korakis alleged that both doctors and the hospital failed to diagnose and properly treat a fracture in her left elbow, leading to lasting harm.
A Medical Review Panel found that the defendants did not fail to meet the standard of care.
Korakis presented an affidavit from Dr. James Kemmler as her expert, detailing how standard care was allegedly not met by Dr. Messmer and Dr. Halperin.
Both defendants and the hospital moved for summary judgment on the basis of the panel’s opinion and argued that the expert affidavit was legally insufficient.
The trial court granted summary judgment for all defendants, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, but the Indiana Supreme Court reversed as to Dr. Messmer only.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an expert affidavit must expressly state the standard of care to defeat summary judgment in a medical malpractice action	The affidavit, when read in context, allows the standard of care to be inferred and creates a factual dispute.	The affidavit did not explicitly set forth the standard of care and was therefore insufficient.	The standard of care may be inferred if the affidavit is substantively sufficient and states treatment fell below that standard.
Whether Dr. Kemmler’s affidavit created a genuine issue of material fact as to Dr. Messmer	Dr. Kemmler’s credentials and detailed assessment made it possible to infer the standard of care and breach.	Affidavit lacked an explicit statement of the standard of care and did not directly connect conduct to breach.	Dr. Kemmler’s affidavit was sufficient to create a material issue as to Dr. Messmer, defeating summary judgment.
Whether summary judgment was properly granted for Dr. Halperin and the hospital	Affidavit also addressed possible breaches by Dr. Halperin and hospital.	No sufficient evidence of breach as to hospital and Dr. Halperin in the affidavit.	Summary judgment affirmed for Dr. Halperin and hospital.
Precedential value: Oelling v. Rao vs. Jordan v. Deery	Jordan approach allows for inference, which supports plaintiff’s case.	Oelling requires express statement, which would preclude plaintiff’s case.	Oelling expressly overruled in part; Jordan’s approach adopted.

Oelling v. Rao, 593 N.E.2d 189 (Ind. 1992) (previously required explicit standard of care in expert affidavits; partially abrogated)
Jordan v. Deery, 609 N.E.2d 1104 (Ind. 1993) (affidavit allows standard of care to be inferred if substantively sufficient)
Siner v. Kindred Hosp. Ltd. P’ship, 51 N.E.3d 1184 (Ind. 2016) (summary judgment precluded by conflicting expert opinions)
Chi Yun Ho v. Frye, 880 N.E.2d 1192 (Ind. 2008) (summary judgment standard in medical malpractice and expert testimony)