Sharon Wright and Leslie Wright v. Anthony E. Miller, D.P.M., and Achilles Podiatry Group
2013 Ind. LEXIS 469
| Ind. | 2013Background
- Wrights sued Dr. Miller and Achilles Podiatry for medical malpractice; trial court struck their expert and dismissed under Trial Rules 37(B) and 41(E).
- Plaintiffs designated Dr. Nash as their expert; Nash was not listed on witness lists, though defendants knew he was intended expert.
- Discovery deadlines were set for July 28, 2010, with August 24, 2010 trial date; multiple late filings occurred by plaintiffs.
- Nash fell ill; plaintiffs sought to substitute a new expert; discovery deadline extensions were granted but a new expert was disclosed late, triggering sanctions.
- Trial court dismissed the case based on exclusion of Nash and belief plaintiffs could not prove their case; Court of Appeals reversed; Supreme Court granted transfer.
- Court reverses and remands, holding Nash’s exclusion was improper and the dismissal based on that exclusion should be denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether excluding the expert was proper sanctions for discovery violations | Wright; exclusion was improper and dismissal excessive | Miller; sanctions justified due to discovery violations | Exclusion was improper; dismissal reversed. |
| Whether dismissal was appropriate despite improper exclusion | Exclusion cannot justify dismissal | Dismissal appropriate to enforce court orders | Dismissal overturned; case remanded. |
| What is the proper balance of trial court sanctions for discovery abuses | Sanctions should be less severe than dismissal | Sanctions may include dismissal for egregious conduct | Encourages lesser sanctions but affirms discretion; not strictly formulaic. |
| Applicability of Wiseheart factors to civil discovery sanctions | Factors should guide, not rigidly dictate | Factors support dismissal in egregious cases | Wiseheart factors are guidance, not a mandatory checklist. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wiseheart v. State, 491 N.E.2d 985 (Ind.1986) (factors for exclusion of witnesses; should consider prejudice and effectiveness of lesser sanctions)
- Outback Steakhouse of Fla., Inc. v. Markley, 856 N.E.2d 65 (Ind.2006) (sanctions should minimize prejudice and not punish unrelated conduct)
- Whitaker v. Becker, 960 N.E.2d 111 (Ind.2012) (judicial discretion in sanctions; avoid mechanical rules)
- Major v. City of Gary, 822 N.E.2d 169 (Ind.2005) (inherent powers to maintain court dignity and process; sanctions)
- Rumfelt v. Himes, 438 N.E.2d 980 (Ind.1982) (sanctions under Trial Rule 41(E) and related procedures)
- Prime Mortg. USA, Inc. v. Nichols, 885 N.E.2d 628 (Ind.Ct.App.2008) (presence of sanctions and proportionality in civil cases)
- McCullough v. Archbold Ladder Co., 605 N.E.2d 175 (Ind.1993) (review of trial court sanctions for abuse of discretion)
- Benton v. Moore, 622 N.E.2d 1002 (Ind.Ct.App.1993) (precedent on overlap of Trial Rules 37 and 41)