JOYNER-WENTLAND v. Waggoner
2008 WL 2761597, 890 N.E.2d 730, 2008 Ind. App. LEXIS 1516 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A patient's provision of inaccurate medical history does not constitute contributory negligence if the inaccuracy was not the proximate cause of the injury, particularly when the physician would have breached the standard of care even based on the inaccurate information provided.
Facts:
- On May 15, 2002, Pamela Waggoner, age fifty, had a consultation with Dr. Monica Joyner-Wentland for a breast lift surgery.
- On a medical history form, Waggoner stated that her last mammogram had been in May 2000, when in fact it had been performed in February 1997.
- Relying on the information Waggoner provided, Dr. Joyner-Wentland did not order a new mammogram before proceeding with surgery.
- On June 4, 2002, Dr. Joyner-Wentland performed the breast surgery on Waggoner and discovered a firm tissue mass, which she removed.
- The tissue was later confirmed to be cancerous, and the lack of a pre-operative mammogram complicated subsequent treatment, ultimately requiring Waggoner to undergo a mastectomy and extensive reconstructive surgeries.
Procedural Posture:
- A medical review panel concluded that Dr. Joyner-Wentland failed to comply with the appropriate standard of care by not obtaining a timely mammogram report.
- Pamela Waggoner filed a medical malpractice complaint against Dr. Joyner-Wentland in an Indiana trial court.
- At the conclusion of the trial, Dr. Joyner-Wentland tendered proposed jury instructions on contributory negligence, which the trial court refused to give.
- A jury returned a verdict in favor of Waggoner for $1,315,000.
- The trial court later granted the doctor's motion to remit the award to the statutory cap of $1,250,000.
- Dr. Joyner-Wentland (appellant) appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeals of Indiana, with Waggoner as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the trial court abuse its discretion by refusing to give a jury instruction on contributory negligence when the patient provided an inaccurate date for her last mammogram, but the inaccurate information still indicated she was overdue for a mammogram according to the established medical standard of care?
Opinions:
Majority - Kirsch, Judge
No, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing the instruction on contributory negligence. For a patient's conduct to constitute contributory negligence, it must be a proximate cause of the injury, meaning it must unite with the defendant's fault in producing the harm. Here, Waggoner’s inaccurate information was not the proximate cause of her injuries. Expert testimony established that the standard of care for a woman over fifty was an annual mammogram. Therefore, even based on the inaccurate information that her last mammogram was two years prior, Waggoner was still overdue for a new one. Dr. Joyner-Wentland failed to present any evidence that she would have acted differently had she known the mammogram was five years old instead of two. Because the doctor's breach of the standard of care would have occurred regardless of the patient's error, the patient's mistake was not a legally sufficient cause of the injury.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the critical element of proximate causation within the defense of contributory negligence in medical malpractice cases. It clarifies that a patient's factual error in providing their medical history will not bar recovery if the physician's negligence would have occurred regardless. The ruling makes it more difficult for healthcare providers to use minor patient inaccuracies as a shield against liability when their own conduct falls below the standard of care. This precedent emphasizes that the focus remains on whether the physician's actions, or inactions, were the direct cause of harm, given the information they had, even if that information was flawed.
