Rebecca Stafford, Individually and as Surviving Parent of Drayden Powell, and Drayden Powell v. James E. Szymanowski, M.D. and Gyn, Ltd., Inc.
2015 Ind. LEXIS 463
| Ind. | 2015Background
- Rebecca Stafford received prenatal care from physicians at GYN, Ltd.; her son Drayden was stillborn on November 6, 2007.
- Stafford filed a proposed medical malpractice complaint with the Indiana Department of Insurance in 2009 and added the fetus Drayden as a plaintiff.
- A Medical Review Panel (three doctors) issued a unanimous opinion that the providers did not breach the standard of care and their conduct was not a factor in the injury.
- Stafford sued in state court (2012) alleging medical negligence and wrongful death under the Child Wrongful Death Statute; defendants moved for summary judgment relying on the Panel opinion.
- Stafford designated expert testimony from Dr. Gary Brickner asserting breaches of care (focusing on events of November 1, 2007) and implicating Dr. Szymanowski; defendants challenged admissibility and specificity of evidence as to the clinic GYN’s vicarious liability.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for Dr. Szymanowski and GYN; Court of Appeals affirmed; Indiana Supreme Court reversed as to Dr. Szymanowski (finding a genuine factual dispute) and affirmed as to GYN (no properly designated evidence of agency/vicarious liability).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dr. Szymanowski is entitled to summary judgment based on the Panel's unanimous opinion | Brickner's expert affidavit and deposition create a genuine issue that Dr. Szymanowski breached the standard of care (esp. failures on Nov. 1) | Panel opinion negates breach; Brickner's testimony is vague/contradictory and not targeted at a specific defendant | Reversed as to Dr. Szymanowski — expert testimony created a genuine issue of material fact |
| Whether GYN is vicariously liable for physicians' acts (agency/principal liability) | Documents, clinic logo, and prior statements suggest physicians were partners/agents of GYN; GYN operated as umbrella entity | Plaintiff’s exhibits are unsworn, uncertified, and inadmissible; no properly designated evidence of agency | Affirmed for GYN — no admissible evidence establishing agency/vicarious liability |
| Whether plaintiff’s CWDS wrongful-death claim was viable | Plaintiff pursued CWDS claim for death of child not born alive | Defendants argued time bar (and other defenses) | Court summarily affirmed Court of Appeals disposition of CWDS claim (no change) |
| Whether unsworn / unauthenticated documents and Panel submissions are proper Rule 56 evidence | Plaintiff relied on several such items to prove agency and facts | Defendants argued such items are inadmissible for summary judgment purposes | Unsworn/unauthenticated materials not proper; trial court properly struck several exhibits; cannot support summary judgment opposition |
Key Cases Cited
- Ind. Univ. Med. Ctr., Riley Hosp. for Children v. Logan, 728 N.E.2d 855 (Ind. 2000) (standard for summary judgment and admissibility of designated evidence)
- Kennedy v. Murphy, 659 N.E.2d 506 (Ind. 1995) (nonmovant’s burden in medical-malpractice cases after panel opinion)
- Culbertson v. Mernitz, 602 N.E.2d 98 (Ind. 1992) (Medical Review Panel opinion shifts burden; plaintiff must rebut with expert medical testimony)
- Boston v. GYN, Ltd., 785 N.E.2d 1187 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (unanimous panel opinion ordinarily establishes prima facie evidence for defendant physician at summary judgment)
- Smith v. Delta Tau Delta, Inc., 9 N.E.3d 154 (Ind. 2014) (unsworn and unauthenticated documents are improper Rule 56 evidence)