December 7, 2011
A medical review panel unanimously found that a doctor did not have proper training to perform a particular surgery on a patient. Is this be sufficient to get the plaintiff past summary judgment in a medical malpractice case? In
Martinex v. Park, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), Cause No. 45A05-1012-CT-799, the Court said it was not, because it did not establish causation.
less..
Dr. Park performed a breast reduction on Ms. Martinez, but she was unhappy with the results and filed a proposed complaint with the IDOI. The medical review panel unanimously found that Dr. Park
failed to comply with the appropriate standard of care as charged in the complaint as it relates to the lack of appropriate recognized post-graduate training and residency in plastic and reconstructive surgery. The conduct complained of was a factor of the resultant damage.
Martinez then filed a medical malpractice action against Dr. Park and identified the members of the medical review panel as her experts. Dr. Park moved for summary judgment, arguing that the opinion of the medical review panel did not establish causation because they did not opine that he acted negligently during the surgery. The Court agreed.
Martinez's argument on summary judgment, as on appeal, fails to recognize that there is a distinction "between the
fact of a surgery being performed and the
manner in which the surgery is performed."
Hamilton v. Ashton, 850 N.E.2d 466, 467 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (
opinion on reh’g) (emphasis in original). Martinez's complaint raises an issue with regard to the manner in which Dr. Park performed the surgery; Dr. Park's designated expert affidavit avers that he did not breach the standard of care in the manner in which he performed the surgery or provided pre- and post-operative care. The medical review panel opinion and Martinez's expert affidavit address only the fact of the surgery; that is, given his training, knowledge, and expertise, should Dr. Park have performed the breast reduction surgery Neither addresses the manner in which Dr. Park actually performed the surgery itself.
The Court affirmed the trial court's decision to grant summary judgment to Dr. Park.
I have some sympathy for Martinez in this situation. After all, it is arguably reasonable to infer that a bad result from a surgery performed by an inadequately trained doctor was caused by that doctor's negligence. However, the Court is unwilling to make that deduction. Parties should, therefore, carefully examine their evidence to make sure that they are proving exactly and directly what they intend to prove.
Lesson:
Proof that a particular person should not have performed a task does not prove that the task was performed improperly.
Trackback Address :: http://www.indianalawupdate.com/trackback/301
