Success Stories

The vigorously contested action included claims of sexual harassment and hostile work environment arising from a physical encounter between a female HPD officer and a male HPD officer in October of 2016. Plaintiff has appealed the decision to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

Partners John McCrum and David Beach, along with associate Ryan Cook, received an order by U.S. District Court Judge Philip P. Simon granting summary judgment to firm client City of Hammond in the case of Szany v. City of Hammond, et al., which was filed in the Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division.

The plaintiff alleged that defendant otorhinolaryngologist failed to make appropriate treatment recommendations when he saw the patient following her presentation to him status post partial glossectomy for a Stage I tongue cancer, resulting in recurrence of her cancer and death. The medical review panel had rendered a unanimous opinion against Anonymous ENT.

After a 7 day trial, the jury rendered a unanimous verdict in favor of defendant.

Whether Beacon Health and Fitness Center was negligent in failing to maintain its stairs and failing to warn Plaintiff of a dangerous condition on its stairs. Plaintiff suffered a broken shoulder and underwent a reverse total shoulder arthroplasty and months of physical therapy. The case was tried for three days in St. Joseph County with Judge John Broden presiding.

After 4 hours of deliberation the jury rendered a defense verdict.

Whether an emergency medicine physician met the standard of care in his treatment of an 88 year old female patient presenting to the emergency department after being treated by her primary care physician for a painful, infected laceration between her right fourth and fifth toes. More than three weeks after the care at issue, the plaintiff was found to have substantial chronic peripheral arterial disease with multiple occlusions in her right leg that could not be revascularized. Plaintiff eventually underwent three right lower extremity amputation surgeries, culminating in an above knee amputation. The case was tried for three days in the Porter Circuit/Superior Court with the Honorable Mary DeBoer presiding.

Defense verdict.

Plaintiff appealed a St. Joseph County Circuit Court order granting summary judgment regarding a medical malpractice case. He raised the following issues: 1) whether the trial court should have allowed him to supplement his designation of evidence; 2) whether the trial court properly struck his expert report; and 3) whether the trial court properly granted summary judgment to the Defendants. The firm represented the Medical Center.

Summary Judgment for all Defendants affirmed on appeal.

Eichhorn & Eichhorn, LLP assisted in defending an action by a former employee against her employer for defamation and breach of contract. The defamation claim failed because the statements about the employee's appearance fit none of the required categories to constitute defamation per se and were not capable of objective verification and, therefore, could not be defamation per quod. Further, the breach of contract claim failed because there was no written contract and she did not give independent consideration for an employment contract by giving up any alternative employment based on a promise of permanent employment.

Summary judgment in favor of the client was entered by the trial court and affirmed in the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court denied transfer.

Bench trial on a declaratory judgment action to determine whether Orthopedic Office had common law lien and/or interest in negotiable instrument.

Verdict for Defendant

This was a jury trial regarding a patient who fell on a treadmill during a cardiac stress test and alleged shoulder derangement requiring total shoulder replacement due to inadequate response and treatment of fall.

Defense verdict.

This was a jury trial regarding a teenager who collapsed while playing basketball and died. Plaintiff alleged pediatrician failed to adequately diagnose and treat teenager's previous episode of passing out while playing basketball.

Defense verdict.

The plaintiff alleged that the Physician Network and the co-defendant Physician failed to timely diagnose a complete rupture of Mrs. Thomas’ Achilles tendon. As a result, she claimed could not have surgical repair, resulting in injuries and damages due to diminished function. The medical review panel found in plaintiff’s favor and two panelists testified against the defendants. Both sides also presented retained experts at trial.

Verdict for defendants

Edwards is a medical device manufacturer and a long-time client of the law firm. It manufactures an annuloplasty ring to treat myxomatous heart disease and mitral valve regurgitation. This “myxo” ring was actually conceived and designed by one of the co-defendants, the plaintiff’s cardiac surgeon. During surgery to repair the plaintiff’s myxomatous disease and mitral valve regurgitation, the co-defendant selected the “myxo” ring in question among various other myxo ring options. But the plaintiff suffered a heart attack during the surgery, possibly due to the placement of a surgical stitch on one of the valve leaflets, a known complication of the surgical repair. The plaintiff’s surgical repair was a success; the myxo ring remains in place and the plaintiff’s heart valve continues to operate properly. But because of the heart attack, the plaintiff has decreased heart strength. The plaintiff claimed that the size and shape of the ring was a proximate cause of her heart attack, along with surgical error. While she did not contend that the ring was itself defective, she claimed that it was not properly cleared by the FDA and should have been disclosed to her as an “experimental” device. According to the plaintiff, had she been warned that the Edwards myxo ring was “experimental,” she would not have agreed to its use. She also contended that, by allowing her cardiac surgeon to use the myxo ring, another co-defendant hospital had engaged in an undisclosed experimental study.

Edwards obtained summary judgment on the basis that proper FDA clearance was to be decided solely by the FDA, which had never found the myxo ring to be non-compliant with its procedural requirements. Edwards also obtained summary judgment on the basis that it had no obligation to warn either the plaintiff or her “learned intermediary” cardiac surgeon of the regulatory status of the myxo ring. The co-defendants also obtained a jury verdict in their failure as to the plaintiff’s medical negligence and failure to warn theories. The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the entry of summary judgment for Edwards after oral argument by Mr. Jensen, finding that FDA compliance is within the FDA’s exclusive jurisdiction, and that Edwards had no duty to the plaintiff to warn her or her “learned intermediary” cardiac physician of the regulatory status of the myxo ring. The court also found no trial error with regard to the jury verdict in favor of the co-defendants. As a result, the court then also agreed with Edwards that the jury’s verdict in favor of the co-defendants was “estoppel by verdict” as to all of the plaintiff’s theories against Edwards, including her allegations of a failure to warn and proximate causation due to the shape and size of the myxo ring. The plaintiff then chose not to seek review of these outcomes with the Illinois Supreme Court.

Whether emergency medicine physician met the standard of care in his care and treatment of a 12 year old male patient presenting to the emergency department after falling from a tree and landing on a tree branch that punctured into his right shin. A surgical exploration three days later revealed a retained piece of tree branch buried deep in the muscle tissues of the leg. The case was tried for four days in the Porter Superior Court with the Honorable Roger V. Bradford presiding.

Defense verdict.

Partners David Beach and John McCrum successfully defended two Hammond Police officers involved in the apprehension and arrest of a burglar in a four-day jury trial which resulted in a verdict for the defendants. The two officers arrested Mitchell Alicea after he burglarized a family’s home in north Hammond. One of the officers used a K-9, Leo, to track Alicea to an empty, above-ground swimming pool, where Alicea was found hiding with his hands in his jacket pockets. Despite multiple orders to show his hands, Alicea refused, at which point Leo was ordered to apprehend him. After the arrest, Alicea was convicted of burglary and sentenced to a term of years at Westville Correctional Center. While in prison, Alicea sued the officers for excessive force related to the dog bite he sustained to his forearm, which caused permanent nerve damage. At trial, he asserted that when confronted in the pool he voluntarily surrendered, but that the officer nonetheless sent the dog after him. After retiring to deliberate, the jury reached its verdict for the defendant officers within a matter of minutes.

Defense verdict.

Each case involved a deceased patient of a cardiologist and his cardiology group whose estate claimed alleged medical malpractice. Summary judgment on the statute of limitations was sought by the medical providers represented by Eichhorn & Eichhorn, LLP. The estate claimants argued tolling of the statute of limitations.

The Honorable John Pera of the Lake Superior Court granted full summary judgment in each case on February 18, 2019. Each estate claimant then filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals. But after consolidation of the appeals and the filing of the court record and transcripts, the estate claimants agreed to dismiss their respective appeals with prejudice rather than file their consolidated Appellants’ Brief. The Court of Appeals dismissed both appeals with prejudice on May 20, 2019.

Eichhorn & Eichhorn, LLP’s client was an Indiana attorney who served as one of three co-counsel for a doctor who pled guilty to Medicare fraud charges in a Texas federal district court. The attorney was sued by the plaintiff for failing to timely inform him when the primary handling attorney was himself criminally charged. According to the plaintiff, this misconduct by the primary handling attorney included stealing money from the plaintiff. The plaintiff also claimed that he would not have pled guilty had he known of the misdeeds of the primary handling attorney. The trial court in the legal malpractice case granted summary judgment to Eichhorn & Eichhorn’s client on the basis that the plaintiff was collaterally estopped from pursuing his claim by: 1) the plaintiff’s own guilty plea; and 2) the judgment findings made by the Texas federal district court that: a) the plaintiff was adequately represented in determining to plead guilty; and b) it would have been unreasonable for him to refuse the plea offer and go to trial. The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s entry of summary judgment for Eichhorn & Eichhorn’s client. The Court of Appeals first noted that the plaintiff had not demonstrated that any of the claimed misconduct on the part of the primary handling attorney either occurred or induced him to plead guilty in some fashion. The Court of Appeals also rejected the plaintiff’s claim that he should be allowed to avoid collateral estoppel under these circumstances. Finally, the Court of Appeals found that, while the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals had allowed the plaintiff to pursue a limited appeal of the findings of the Texas District Court, that limited appeal was not material to the aforementioned findings as to which the plaintiff was collaterally estopped.

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the entry of summary judgment for Eichhorn & Eichhorn's client in a published opinion. The Indiana Supreme Court denied transfer on March 14, 2019.

Jose Andrade is a landlord who owns 32 properties with a total 62 rental units. He purchased a Hammond building in 1998 with the intention of renting it out. The building was built in 1927 and divided into multiple units over time, ultimately into five apartments. Notices were sent to Andrade by the enforcement body, City of Hammond, of various safety violations at this property.

The firm successfully defended Hammond and its Board of Public Works and Safety, (“the Safety Board”), in both a judicial review trial and on appeal. After a hearing, the Safety Board declared the building to be unsafe. The Safety Board concluded that the building had inadequate fire stopping, lack of fire blocking, flammable support beams, inadequate fire separation, improperly braced stairs of inadequate width, lack of basement apartment bedroom windows and low basement ceilings that would contribute to smoke accumulation and prevent egress in an emergency. The Safety Board also held that the building could be occupied safely only as a single family dwelling, or possibly as a two-unit. The Lake Superior Court affirmed the Safety Board in a judicial review trial. The Indiana Court of Appeals then affirmed the Safety Board’s order that Andrade restore the five unit apartment building back to a single-family dwelling after the Board found that the building was unsafe and originally permitted and constructed as a single family dwelling. Andrade contended that the Board exceeded its statutory authority by acting as a zoning authority when it ordered him to restore the home to a single-family dwelling. The Court of Appeals rejected this argument, and found that the Safety Board’s order that the four unsafe apartments in the home had to be removed fell squarely within the ambit of the Indiana Unsafe Building Law’s unambiguous provisions. The Court also found that the Safety Board could order the building remediated in this fashion under the Unsafe Building Law because it was unsafe, and regardless of whether the building was constructed as a multi-unit, even with a proper permit. The Court of Appeals also rejected out-of-hand Andrade’s suggestion that this was an unconstitutional “taking” without Due Process. Finally, the Court of Appeals held that the Safety Board did not exceed its statuary authority in its order, and that there was more than sufficient evidence to prove that: 1) the building was unsafe; and 2) the building in fact was constructed as a single-family dwelling in 1927. The Indiana Supreme Court denied transfer on March 8, 2019.

A deceased patient of cardiologist/cardiology group claimed alleged malpractice. Summary judgment on the statute of limitations was sought by the defendants. The claimant argued tolling of the statute of limitations.

The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's denial of summary judgment and granted the cardiologist's and group's Motion for Summary Judgment. The Indiana Supreme Court denied transfer on March 8, 2019.

This case involved a female patient admitted with cardiac arrhythmia which was successfully treated. She subsequently suffered a thrombus in her arm related to her IV. As it turns out, she had an unknown and previously undiagnosed clotting abnormality. She alleged that she was given a sclerosing medication which was never ordered and of which the only evidence was an erroneous reference in the electronic medical record that resulted from a programming error.

In the matter before the Indiana Court of Appeals, Lou Voelker and co-defendants successfully appealed a partial denial of summary judgment. In the trial court, Lou filed on behalf of his client a motion for summary judgment based upon the unanimous favorable opinion of the medical review panel finding no breach of the standard of care.

Three different deceased patients of cardiologist / cardiology group claimed alleged malpractice. Summary judgment on the statute of limitations was sought by the defendants in each claim. The claimants argued tolling of the statute of limitations.

Mr. Jensen appeared before the Court of Appeals and after oral argument it affirmed the trial court’s entry of summary judgment and evidentiary rulings in Biedron. In Sullivan and Poteet, the Court of Appeals reversed all of the trial courts’ rulings and granted the cardiologists’ and group’s Motions For Summary Judgment and Motions To Strike. The Indiana Supreme Court denied transfer in all three cases.

Whether orthopedic surgeon met the standard of care in his surgical treatment and follow up care for post-op arthrofibrosis which developed after a complex ACL reconstruction in a 26 year old female patient. The case was tried to a jury for five days in the Hamilton Superior Court, with the Honorable Steven R. Nation presiding.

Defense verdict.

An Indiana Law Firm was sued by a former client who claimed that the firm had agreed to pursue a second premises liability claim on her behalf, which they denied. This second claim was not filed within the statute of limitations and the former client claimed attorney malpractice. The court granted the defendants' summary judgment, the plaintiff appealed.

Mr. Jensen argued on transfer to Indiana Supreme Court. The Indiana Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals decision.

The firm successfully defended a local cardiologist at jury trial in the Lake Superior Court (Judge John R. Pera), which culminated in a defense verdict on December 10, 2018. The case involved the death of a 54 year old man who underwent a cardiac stress test for recurrent chest pain. The patient, Houser, had been taking Depakote for several years, which was prescribed by his psychiatrist for a mood disorder, including anxiety and depression. He also had a documented history of panic attacks. The hospital records were equivocal as to whether Mr. Houser had a history of seizures. After stepping off the cardiac treadmill, Houser began exhibiting odd movements with his arms and legs, and complained of pain in his back. The testing cardiologist concluded that Houser was having a panic attack. Along with a cardiac stress technician, the doctor encouraged the patient to calm down and he continued to assess the patient’s heart rate and rhythms on the cardiac monitor. Although Houser’s heart rate came down initially, he continued to be restless and anxious, and he suddenly collapsed. A Code Blue was called, and the cardiologist and code team worked on the patient for well over an hour but were unable to revive him. Plaintiff’s theory was that the doctor failed to recognize and properly treat a sustained seizure, which resulted in muscle breakdown and a release of enzymes causing fatal cardiac rhythms. The defense countered with evidence that Mr. Houser had died of cardiac arrhythmia resulting from a narrowing of the right coronary artery together with myocardial ischemia.

The jury deliberated approximately two hours before returning a verdict in favor of the cardiologist.

This case involved a newborn metabolic screen that found the infant’s TSH level was “borderline abnormal.” Plaintiff alleged that the defendants’ failure to follow-up on the newborn screen was administrative error, outside of the Medical Malpractice Act.

The Court of Appeals found that the matter sounded of medical malpractice and affirmed dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint.

Jose Andrade is a landlord who owns 32 properties with a total 62 rental units. He purchased a Hammond building in 1998 with the intention of renting it out. The building was built in 1927 and divided into multiple units over time, ultimately into five apartments. Notices were sent to Andrade by the enforcement body, City of Hammond, of various safety violations at this property.

The firm successfully defended Hammond and its Board of Public Works and Safety, (“the Safety Board”), in a judicial review trial . After a hearing, the Safety Board declared the building to be unsafe. The Safety Board concluded that the building had inadequate fire stopping, lack of fire blocking, flammable support beams, inadequate fire separation, improperly braced stairs of inadequate width, lack of basement apartment bedroom windows and low basement ceilings that would contribute to smoke accumulation and prevent egress in an emergency. The Safety Board also held that the building could be occupied safely only as a single family dwelling, or possibly as a two-unit. The Lake Superior Court affirmed the Safety Board in a judicial review trial.

Plaintiff sought damages for the alleged unnecessary implantation of a cardiac biventricular pacemaker and defibrillator

Defense verdict in favor of all defendants.