« Ind. Gov't. - "The driver's license is now the primary form of identification" | Main | Environment - More on "NW Indiana counties stop residents' wind tower ventures" »

Thursday, October 08, 2009

Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 2 today (and 9 NFP)

For publication opinions today (2):

In Linda Spaulding, et al v. Erinn Harris, M.D., and Health & Hospital Corp. of Marion County d/b/a Wishard Memorial Hospital, a 20-page opinion, Judge Vaidik writes:

Decedent Mattie Spaulding sustained a subdural hematoma shortly after receiving anticoagulation treatment from Dr. Erinn R. Harris at Wishard Memorial Hospital. Mattie’s family filed this action alleging that Dr. Harris’s and Wishard’s negligence precipitated Mattie’s brain injury. A jury found in favor of Dr. Harris and Wishard, and the Spauldings appealed. We hold that the trial court erred in excluding expert opinions that were based in part on a professional publication that reflected a legitimate accumulation of the expert’s knowledge and expertise, but we find this error to be harmless. We further hold that redaction of the words “Department of Insurance” from the medical review panel opinion was not improper and the trial court did not abuse its discretion by prohibiting cross-examination that was outside the scope of direct. We affirm. * * *

Here Dr. Southern testified that substandard protime monitoring contributed to Mattie’s brain injury. As an internist experienced in dosing blood thinners and treating hematoma, Dr. Southern had a thorough understanding of the medical subject matter involved in this case. And as a panelist who first entertained the Spauldings’ complaint, Dr. Southern was familiar with the facts and circumstances surrounding Mattie’s death. Dr. Southern was qualified to provide an expert opinion by reason of her education, background, training, and understanding of the facts at issue. The trial court excluded portions of her testimony apparently because they were based in part on a medical article about unsafe INR levels. But Dr. Southern was a qualified expert and was at liberty to consult medical literature from her field to analyze the case and render an opinion. We agree with the defendants that Section 34-18-10-23 does not give review panel members a free pass to testify on any matters they so choose. We also acknowledge that Dr. Southern did not express an opinion on causation in the medical review panel opinion. But when she was deposed, Dr. Southern was not just a medical review panel member permitted to testify within the confines of the panel opinion—she was also qualified as a medical expert under Rule 702. Dr. Southern was therefore competent to provide her opinion on the connection between Dr. Harris’s protime monitoring and Mattie’s hematoma, and she was allowed to rely on professional publications as a “legitimate accumulation” of her knowledge and expertise. We therefore find that the trial court erred by excluding portions of Dr. Southern’s causation testimony merely because they relied in part on a medical article. * * *

That being said, even if an evidentiary decision was an abuse of discretion, we will not reverse if the ruling constituted harmless error.

In Thomas Longhi v. Louis Mazzoni and Lorraine Mazzoni, a 22-page opinion, Judge Brown writes:
Based upon our review of the evidence and in light of our standard to give deference to the trial court's decision to pierce the corporate veil, we cannot say that the trial court's decision to pierce the corporate veil of Schema LLC and hold Longhi liable was clearly erroneous. * * *

Given the evidence and findings above, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court's conclusion that Longhi either “knowingly or intentionally ma[de] a false or misleading written statement” to obtain the Mazzonis' $50,000 payment under subsection (2) of Ind. Code § 35-43-5-3(a) or “misapplie[d] entrusted property” in a manner that he knew “involve[d] substantial risk of loss” under subsection (3) of Ind. Code § 35-43-5-3(a). Therefore the trial court's judgment awarding the Mazzonis treble damages under Ind. Code § 34-24-3-1 was not clearly erroneous. * * *

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the decision of the trial court to pierce the corporate veil of Schema LLC to hold Longhi liable and award the Mazzonis treble damages.

NFP civil opinions today (1):

Douglass S. Hale, M.D. v. Melissa Phelps (NFP) - "Douglass Hale, M.D., brings this interlocutory appeal challenging the trial court's denial of his motion for summary judgment on Melissa Phelps's complaint for medical malpractice. Hale presents two issues for review, which we consolidate and restate as: Did the trial court properly deny Dr. Hale's motion for summary judgment? We reverse and remand."

NFP criminal opinions today (8):

Stacy L. Adams v. State of Indiana (NFP)

David W. Kubelsky v. State of Indiana (NFP)

D.P. v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Christopher Coates v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Lamarque Ross v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Sanders Williams v. State of Indiana (NFP)

D'Antonette Burns v. State of Indiana (NFP)

James R. Vaden, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Posted by Marcia Oddi on October 8, 2009 12:56 PM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions