63 N.E.3d 1
Ind. Ct. App.2016Background
- Rita Horn underwent a coronary angiogram by Dr. Cesar Jara on July 8, 2006; an internal bleeding complication occurred during the procedure.
- The Horns submitted a written medical review panel submission alleging the Defendants breached the standard of care in performing the catheterization/angiogram (res ipsa-style contention); they did not send the proposed complaint to the full panel members.
- The medical review panel issued an opinion that the evidence did not support a finding that the Defendants breached the applicable standard of care.
- The Horns later sued in Porter Superior Court and designated Dr. Stephen Joyce as an expert; Dr. Joyce opined the angiogram should not have been performed (i.e., it was not indicated) and therefore breached the standard of care.
- The trial court excluded expert testimony and evidence on the theory that the procedure was not indicated because that theory had not been presented to the medical review panel; the jury found for the Defendants and the Horns appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by excluding expert testimony and evidence that the angiogram was not indicated because that claim was not presented to the medical review panel | The decision to perform the procedure is inseparable from how it was performed; Horns contend the panel was presented with all breach theories (including failure to diagnose/indication) via their submission and exhibits | The medical review panel did not receive the proposed complaint; the Submission focused on how the angiogram was performed and complications, not on lack of indication; therefore the indication theory was not presented to the panel and is barred at trial | Affirmed: Court held the indication/failure-to-diagnose theory was not presented to the panel, so trial court properly excluded that expert testimony and evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Morse v. Davis, 965 N.E.2d 148 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (standard of review for admission/exclusion of evidence and expert testimony)
- Weinberger v. Gill, 983 N.E.2d 1158 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (reversal for evidentiary error requires inconsistency with substantial justice)
- Ind. Patient's Comp. Fund v. Patrick, 929 N.E.2d 190 (Ind. 2010) (explaining Medical Malpractice Act procedures)
- K.D. v. Chambers, 951 N.E.2d 855 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (malpractice plaintiffs may not present new, separate breaches at trial that were not presented to the medical review panel)
- Miller by Miller v. Mem'l Hosp. of S. Bend, Inc., 679 N.E.2d 1329 (Ind. 1997) (plaintiffs need not fully explicate particulars to the panel but must present the claim)