Debra R. Sorrells v. Karen Reid-Renner, M.D.
49 N.E.3d 647, 2016 Ind. App. LEXIS 6, 2016 WL 187970 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a medical malpractice action, a plaintiff can defeat a motion for summary judgment by presenting expert testimony that creates a genuine issue of material fact as to causation, even when a medical review panel has issued an opinion of no causation. The injury alleged need not be a worsening of the patient's ultimate prognosis but can consist of unnecessary medical treatments and emotional distress resulting from a negligent delay in diagnosis.
Facts:
- On October 1, 2008, Dr. Karen Reid-Renner treated Debra R. Sorrells as a new patient and drew her blood for testing.
- The blood test results showed an elevated white blood cell count, but Dr. Reid-Renner never communicated these results to Sorrells or monitored her for cancer.
- Over a year later, on November 22, 2009, Sorrells saw a different physician who found her white blood cell count was highly elevated.
- Sorrells was referred to an oncologist, Dr. Dayton, who, believing she had a very serious cancer with only weeks to live, immediately started her on an aggressive chemotherapy regimen that required a port to be placed in her chest.
- Subsequent pathology reports revealed that Sorrells actually had a much less serious, low-grade lymphoma that would not have required such urgent and aggressive treatment.
Procedural Posture:
- Debra Sorrells submitted a proposed medical malpractice complaint to a medical review panel as required by Indiana law.
- The panel unanimously opined that Dr. Reid-Renner failed to comply with the standard of care but that this conduct was not a factor in any resultant damages.
- Sorrells filed a medical malpractice claim against Dr. Reid-Renner in the Monroe Circuit Court (the trial court).
- Dr. Reid-Renner filed a motion for summary judgment based on the panel's opinion regarding lack of causation.
- Sorrells responded to the motion by designating deposition testimony from her subsequent treating oncologist, Dr. Dayton.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Dr. Reid-Renner.
- Sorrells's subsequent motion to correct error was denied by the trial court.
- Sorrells appealed the entry of summary judgment to the Court of Appeals of Indiana.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a medical malpractice plaintiff's expert testimony, which states that a doctor's negligent failure to communicate test results led to unnecessarily aggressive medical treatments and emotional distress, create a genuine issue of material fact on causation sufficient to defeat a summary judgment motion, even though a medical review panel found no causation and the plaintiff's ultimate prognosis was unaffected?
Opinions:
Majority - Crone, J.
Yes. A plaintiff's expert testimony can create a genuine issue of material fact on causation sufficient to defeat summary judgment. Under Indiana's heightened summary judgment standard, which errs on the side of letting marginal cases proceed to trial, the defendant must do more than show the plaintiff lacks evidence; they must affirmatively negate the plaintiff's claim. When a medical review panel opines there was no causation, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to produce expert medical testimony to rebut that opinion. Here, Sorrells met that burden with Dr. Dayton's testimony. He stated that had he known of the earlier test results, he 'likely would not have started chemotherapy with the urgency' he did and would have used a less aggressive treatment, thereby avoiding the chemotherapy, the port placement, and extended immunotherapy. The court rejected the defendant's argument that the only legally cognizable injury is a worsening of the patient's ultimate prognosis or life expectancy. The unnecessary medical procedures, costs, and accompanying emotional distress caused by the delayed diagnosis constitute a sufficient injury for a jury to consider.
Analysis:
This case reinforces Indiana's high procedural bar for summary judgment, particularly in the context of medical malpractice claims. It clarifies that 'causation' and 'injury' are not limited to the worsening of a patient's underlying condition or a change in their long-term prognosis. The court establishes that the harm caused by undergoing unnecessary, invasive, and emotionally distressing medical treatments due to a diagnostic delay is itself a cognizable injury. This precedent provides a clearer path for plaintiffs to survive summary judgment and reach a jury in cases where the doctor's negligence led to a different course of treatment, rather than a different ultimate outcome.
