Roger Jay Piatek, M.D., and The Piatek Institute v. Shairon Beale, 999 N.E.2d 68

Piatek, M.D. and the Piatek Institute sued Beale in Marion Superior Court for medical malpractice, resulting in a jury verdict against Piatek.
Beale asserted Beale’s care involved Beale’s own disclosure issues and alleged Beale’s incomplete history did not establish contributory negligence by Beale.
Piatek sought a contributory negligence instruction based on Beale’s allegedly inaccurate medical history.
The trial court did not give a contributory negligence instruction; the jury verdict stood in Beale’s favor on appeal.
This court granted rehearing to address Beale’s alleged mischaracterization in the rehearing petition and to reconsider the contributory negligence argument.
The court reaffirmed the original decision, holding no contributory-negligence instruction was warranted and noting the mischaracterization in the petition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a contributory negligence instruction was required.	Piatek argued Beale’s incomplete history justified contributory negligence.	Beale contends no causal link or basis for such instruction.	No error; no evidence Beale’s non-disclosure contributed.
Whether Beale’s alleged mischaracterization in the rehearing petition affected the outcome.	Piatek claims Beale asserted that Piatek’s lack of history caused harm.	Beale did not actually make that assertion; arguments are not evidence.	Misrepresentation acknowledged; original decision reaffirmed.

Fall v. White, 449 N.E.2d 628 (Ind. Ct. App. 1983) (patient may be contributorily negligent for false or incomplete information)
Young v. Butts, 685 N.E.2d 147 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (counsel misstatements are not evidence; misrepresentation can affect appeal)