Wisner v. Laney
2011 Ind. App. LEXIS 1326
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Laney sued Dr. Wisner and SBC for negligent treatment of a March 9, 2001 visit that preceded a disabling stroke; the March 9 record was allegedly incomplete; a Medical Review Panel found issues with Wisner and SBC but not causally tying missing records to damages; the jury found liability against the Defendants and Laney was awarded $1.75 million, later reduced to $1.25 million under the Medical Malpractice Act; Laney sought prejudgment interest and the Defendants sought correction of error for several trial conduct issues; the trial court denied the motion to correct error and Laney cross-appealed on prejudgment interest; the appellate court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
- Laney’s experts testified that Wisner’s evaluation failed to meet standard care and that a detailed neurologic exam was warranted.
- Wisner and SBC argued trial conduct and evidentiary rulings prejudiced them and that the expert’s separation-of-witness violation did occur; the court assessed the conduct but found no substantial prejudice.
- The trial court allowed voir dire questions about insurance as a potential bias issue and permitted a closing argument referencing missing records, which the court deemed non-prejudicial after instruction to the jury.
- Prejudgment interest was denied at trial but on appeal the court reversed, holding the settlement offer complied with Indiana law and Laney was entitled to prejudgment interest.
- The appellate court ultimately affirmed the trial court’s denial of the motion to correct error and reversed the denial of prejudgment interest, then remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Laney’s counsel’s conduct required a mistrial | Laney | Wisner/SBC | No abuse of discretion; no substantial prejudice |
| Whether closing-argument references to missing records were reversible error | Laney | Wisner/SBC | Waived on appeal; no reversible error given instructions |
| Whether Campbell violated the separation of witnesses order | Laney | Wisner/SBC | No abuse of discretion; testimony proper |
| Whether voir dire about insurance violated rules | Laney | Wisner/SBC | No error; questions were proper under Stone |
| Whether Laney is entitled to prejudgment interest under the Act | Laney | Wisner/SBC | Reversed; Laney entitled to prejudgment interest |
Key Cases Cited
- Stone v. Stakes, 749 N.E.2d 1277 (Ind.Ct.App.2001) (insurance voir dire in good faith permissible; bias inquiry allowed)
- Paragon Family Restaurant v. Bartolini, 799 N.E.2d 1048 (Ind.2003) (require timely objection to preserve closing argument issues)
- Outback Steakhouse of Florida, Inc. v. Markley, 856 N.E.2d 65 (Ind.2006) (abuse of discretion standard for Rule 60(B) claims; misconduct shown must be prejudicial)
- Strack and Van Til, Inc. v. Carter, 803 N.E.2d 666 (Ind.Ct.App.2004) (trial court best positioned to gauge impact of counsel conduct)
- Cahoon v. Cummings, 734 N.E.2d 535 (Ind.2000) (69- lawful interpretation of prejudgment interest statute; 60-day payment window)
- Tincher v. Davidson, 784 N.E.2d 551 (Ind.Ct.App.2003) (interpretation of settlement-offer timing for prejudgment interest)
- Hedley v. Ind. Econ. Dev., N/A (N/A) (not cited in decision; placeholder to indicate clean list format)