Engel Speaks v. Emergency Medicine Physician, et al
Claim:
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.
Outcome:
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.
In the matter before the Indiana Court of Appeals, Lou Voelker and co-defendants successfully appealed a partial denial of summary judgment, click here to view the opinion. 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. Plaintiff failed to come forward with any expert affidavit to refute the panel opinion, but timely responded with arguments based upon res ipsa loquitor and the “common knowledge” exception. The trial court properly determined that res ipsa and common knowledge were not applicable and, based on the absence of any expert testimony to refute the unanimous panel opinion, that Lou’s client was entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff’s claims of medical malpractice. However, the trial court then went on to create an artificial distinction between “medical malpractice” and “medical negligence,” and partially denied the motion for summary judgment as it related to plaintiff’s claims for medical negligence and the injuries resulting therefrom. On appeal, the court adopted the defense arguments and properly rejected the trial court’s errant distinction between medical malpractice and medical negligence – a distinction which does not exist in Indiana law. The case was remanded to the trial court with instructions to enter summary judgment in favor of the defendant health care providers.
Partner
219-931-0560
