Roger Jay Piatek, M.D., and the Piatek Institute v. Shairon Beale
2013 Ind. App. LEXIS 230
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Beale pursued weight-loss treatment from Piatek Institute beginning in 2003, where Adipex and Armour Thyroid were prescribed together.
- Beale lost weight but developed a severe skin rash that progressed to toxic epidermal necrolysis (T.E.N.).
- Beale was treated by emergency and dermatology physicians; Beale subsequently sued Piatek for medical malpractice.
- The Indiana medical review panel in 2007 found evidence supported a conclusion that Piatek failed to comply with the standard of care.
- A Marion Superior Court jury initially awarded Beale a verdict against Piatek; Piatek challenged via motion to mistrial and for new instructions.
- The trial court admonished the jury regarding a Fifth Amendment reference; the court denied mistrial and the verdict stood.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mistrial due to Fifth Amendment reference | Beale argues the remark required a mistrial due to prejudice. | Piatek contends admonition cured prejudice; mistrial is warranted only in extreme cases. | Admonition cured prejudice; no mistrial required. |
| Contributory negligence instruction | Beale’s failure to return and dosage deviations could support contributory negligence. | There was no proximate causal conduct by Beale; no instruction warranted. | No contributory negligence instruction warranted. |
| Incurred risk instruction | Deviations and informed consent forms could support incurred risk. | Incurred risk is limited in medical contexts and not established here. | No incurred risk instruction warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Suding v. State, 945 N.E.2d 731 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (admonition curative in mistrial context; great deference to trial court)
- Owens v. State, 937 N.E.2d 880 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (admonition as curative measure for prejudicial testimony)
- Jones v. State, 100 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. App. 2002) (instruction to disregard presumed to cure error unless extreme)
- Border Brook Terrace Condo. Ass’n v. Gladstone, 622 A.2d 1248 (N.H. 1993) (extraordinary case where admonition cannot cure prejudice)
- Roehl v. State, 253 N.W.2d 210 (Wis. 1977) (admonitions can erase possible prejudice to defendant)
- Forrest v. Gilley, 570 N.E.2d 934 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991) (actual knowledge of specific risk required for incurred risk; not applicable here)
- Faulk v. Nw. Radiologists, P.C., 751 N.E.2d 233 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (subjective knowledge of risks in incurred risk analysis)
- Spar v. Cha, 907 N.E.2d 974 (Ind. 2009) (incurred risk context within medical malpractice)
- Power v. Brodie, 460 N.E.2d 1241 (Ind. Ct. App. 1984) (requires actual knowledge and voluntary acceptance for incurred risk)