As attorneys who practice frequently in the area of medical negligence, it is not uncommon to be presented with a case in which the plaintiff seeks damages under both the Medical Malpractice Act (MMA) and the Wrongful Death Act. This article describes how these statutes work together, how to apply the caps, and discusses when a provider can be responsible for paying more than the MMA cap.
The Indiana Court of Appeals has affirmed the dismissal of a medical malpractice complaint after determining the plaintiff engaged in intentional conduct over six years that delayed the panel’s proceedings.
The Indiana Court of Appeals has affirmed summary judgment for a gastroenterologist who was alleged to have committed malpractice by not informing a patient of the criteria for a liver transplant. The court ruled Friday the patient’s estate failed to prove their claim should be allowed to proceed after a seven-year delay in its filing.
A dispute over whether doctors who report suspected child abuse are protected under Indiana statute will come before the state’s high court this week — one of three oral arguments the court will hear Thursday.
A doctor who reported medical child abuse to the Department of Child Services was not protected by the state’s anti-SLAPP statute, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled Friday in a case of first impression.
In 2016, the Indiana Legislature made significant changes to Indiana’s Medical Malpractice Act to take effect on July 1, 2017, giving insurance companies and health care providers time to adapt and implement the changes.
A medical malpractice case against a Franklin County chiropractor must proceed to trial after the Indiana Court of Appeals held Wednesday that chiropractors, including those on medical review panels, are not qualified to render opinions on the cause of injuries when a case involves a “complex” causation issue.
A northern Indiana jury has awarded $744,000 to a couple who claimed a now-deceased doctor performed unnecessary surgery on their teenage son.
In a case of first impression, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled a patient in a medical malpractice case should have been able to cross-examine the medical expert about his personal medical practices.
After six years of controversy over the limits, or lack thereof, on what evidence and arguments may be presented to a trial court during a medical malpractice proceeding, the Indiana Supreme Court has denounced a highly disputed medical malpractice case while simultaneously adopting a recent Court of Appeals opinion.
A medical malpractice case on petition to transfer before the Indiana Supreme Court had both the appellants and appellees urging the justices Thursday to take their case.
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment to a county jail healthcare provider and his employer Monday after finding that the inmate bringing the malpractice claims against the providers failed to prove that his care was objectively unreasonable.
An insurance company was not required to defend an Indiana doctor in a medical malpractice case because the applicable insurance policy had expired before the insurer received notice of the claim.
After finding that evidence of disputed medical malpractice theories in two cases were presented to the medical review panels in each, Indiana Court of Appeals has reversed summary judgment in favor of a health care provider in one case but is allowing the provider in the other to present evidence related to a subsequent malpractice theory against him.
The Indiana Court of Appeals’ ruling that some claims from those injured or family members of those who died after being injected with contaminated steroids are governed by the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act will stand after the Indiana Supreme Court declined to take the case on transfer last week.
A declaratory judgment action can arise from the same occurrence as an underlying tort action for purposes of permissive joinder under Trial Rule 20, the Indiana Court of Appeals held Tuesday. The judges affirmed the denial of a request to sever two tort counts from a count seeking declaratory judgment.
Are recent appellate court decisions raising the evidentiary threshold for health care defendants?
Can parties present evidence or theories at trial that were not presented to the medical review panel?
The Indiana Court of Appeals has rejected a woman’s malpractice claim after holding that the claim was barred by a two-year statute of limitations.
After a dermatology appointment left a Marion County woman with facial discoloration that never went away as her doctor said it would, the woman sought damages in a negligence complaint. However, because she failed to prove that she “later learned” that her injury was worse than she thought, the Indiana Court of Appeals held that the woman’s claim cannot proceed in court because it was not timely filed.