Malooley v. McIntyre
1992 WL 183953, 597 N.E.2d 314 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a medical malpractice case, once a defendant moving for summary judgment presents expert opinion evidence negating the element of causation, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to produce their own expert evidence establishing a genuine issue of material fact on that element.
Facts:
- On July 19, 1986, Suzanne McIntyre was admitted to University Heights Hospital with head and neck pain, where she was treated by Dr. John Malooley.
- Dr. Malooley ordered EEG and CT scans, which produced abnormal results, before releasing McIntyre with a prescription for physical therapy and medication.
- On August 20, 1989, McIntyre went to the University Heights Hospital Emergency Room with severe headaches and was examined by Dr. Eric Cure.
- After consulting with Dr. Malooley, Dr. Cure prescribed pain medication and released her.
- The next day, McIntyre was taken to Methodist Hospital with severe symptoms including nuchal rigidity and disorientation.
- At Methodist Hospital, Dr. Malooley ordered further tests, and McIntyre was admitted to the Neuro Constant Care Unit.
- On August 26, 1986, McIntyre underwent surgery for a clip ligation of a carotid artery aneurysm.
- Suzanne McIntyre died at Methodist Hospital on August 29, 1986.
Procedural Posture:
- The Estate of Suzanne McIntyre filed a Proposed Complaint for Damages against Dr. Cure and Dr. Malooley with the appropriate state authority.
- The claim was submitted to a statutory medical review panel, which issued a split opinion: two of three doctors found no causation, while the third was unable to determine causation.
- The Estate filed a civil lawsuit for medical malpractice against the doctors in an Indiana trial court.
- Dr. Malooley and Dr. Cure each filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing the Estate had no expert evidence of causation.
- The trial court denied both motions for summary judgment.
- Dr. Malooley and Dr. Cure, as appellants, brought an interlocutory appeal to the Court of Appeals of Indiana to review the trial court's denial.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is summary judgment for defendant doctors in a medical malpractice action proper when the plaintiff fails to present any expert evidence of causation after the defendants have submitted a medical review panel opinion finding no causal link between their conduct and the patient's death?
Opinions:
Majority - Sullivan, J.
Yes. Summary judgment for the defendant doctors is proper because a plaintiff in a medical malpractice action cannot survive summary judgment by merely resting on their complaint after the defendant has presented competent expert evidence that their actions did not cause the alleged harm. The defendants, Dr. Malooley and Dr. Cure, met their initial burden by submitting the medical review panel's opinion, which concluded that their conduct was not a factor in McIntyre's death. This shifted the burden to the Estate to present affirmative evidence, in the form of expert opinion, to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding causation. The Estate failed to do so, instead relying on the non-conclusive opinion of one panelist who was unable to determine causation. An expert's inability to form an opinion does not create a factual dispute or support an affirmative claim of causation. Furthermore, the complex medical issue of causation in this case does not fall under the 'common knowledge' exception, which would obviate the need for expert testimony. Without any expert evidence from the plaintiff to counter the defendants' evidence, no genuine issue of material fact on causation exists.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the critical role of expert testimony in medical malpractice litigation, particularly at the summary judgment stage. It clarifies that a defendant can effectively shift the evidentiary burden on causation by presenting a favorable medical review panel opinion. The ruling establishes that a plaintiff cannot rely on ambiguity or a non-committal expert opinion to create a triable issue of fact; they must affirmatively produce contrary expert testimony. This holding raises the bar for plaintiffs to survive summary judgment, requiring them to secure supportive expert opinions early in the litigation process, thereby potentially filtering out weaker claims before they reach a jury.
