McGee v. Bonaventura
605 N.E.2d 792, 1992 WL 389882, 1993 Ind. App. LEXIS 3 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A unanimous medical review panel opinion finding no breach of the standard of care is sufficient to shift the burden to the plaintiff on a motion for summary judgment in a medical malpractice case, requiring the plaintiff to present admissible expert testimony to create a genuine issue of material fact.
Facts:
- Dr. A.P. Bonaventura, Jr. performed surgery on Glenna McGee.
- Following the operation, Glenna McGee continued to experience pain and other symptoms.
- The McGees believed Dr. Bonaventura had negligently performed the operation.
- A medical review panel unanimously concluded that Dr. Bonaventura did not fail to meet the applicable standard of care as charged in the complaint.
Procedural Posture:
- On September 4, 1990, Glenna and Kevin McGee filed a complaint against Dr. Bonaventura in a trial court, alleging negligent performance of surgery.
- Dr. Bonaventura served interrogatories to identify expert witnesses.
- When the McGees failed to answer, Dr. Bonaventura obtained a court order compelling them to answer.
- The McGees complied, naming two doctors who had verbally expressed opinions of negligence.
- On October 3, 1991, Dr. Bonaventura filed a motion for summary judgment, attaching the medical review panel's unanimous opinion.
- The McGees did not submit responsive materials until two days before the hearing on the motion.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Dr. Bonaventura on February 4, 1992.
- The McGees appealed the trial court's adverse summary judgment to the Court of Appeals of Indiana (McGees as appellants, Bonaventura as appellee).
- The Court of Appeals of Indiana issued a memorandum decision on October 22, 1992.
- Dr. Bonaventura filed a motion for publication of the opinion, and the McGees filed a petition for rehearing.
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 unanimous medical review panel opinion finding no breach of the standard of care sufficiently support a defendant's motion for summary judgment in a medical malpractice action, thereby requiring the plaintiff to present admissible expert testimony to establish a genuine issue of material fact?
Opinions:
Majority - SHARPNACK, Chief Judge
Yes, a unanimous medical review panel opinion finding no breach of the standard of care sufficiently supports a defendant's motion for summary judgment, requiring the plaintiff to present admissible expert testimony to establish a genuine issue of material fact. The court affirmed the summary judgment for Dr. Bonaventura, holding that he met his initial burden by submitting the certified, unanimous opinion of the medical review panel. This opinion, admissible under I.C. § 16-9.5-9-9 and T.R. 44(A)(1), negated the existence of a genuine issue of material fact. Once this burden was met, the McGees could not rest on their pleadings but were required to present sufficient admissible evidence to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact, per T.R. 56(E). The McGees failed to do so; their interrogatory answers listing doctors who had verbally expressed opinions of negligence were deemed inadmissible hearsay, insufficient to rebut the panel's opinion. In medical malpractice cases, expert opinion is mandated to establish the standard of care and its breach, as stated in Bassett v. Glock. The court distinguished Winbush v. Memorial Health Systems, Inc., noting that Bonaventura's panel opinion was properly certified, and the McGees had ample opportunity (124 days) to submit sworn affidavits or other admissible expert evidence, but chose not to. Furthermore, the McGees' claim regarding informed consent was waived because it was not raised in the trial court and they failed to designate specific facts or relate arguments to the record as required by T.R. 56(H).
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the burden of proof at the summary judgment stage in Indiana medical malpractice actions. It reinforces that a properly authenticated, unanimous medical review panel opinion in favor of the defendant creates a high bar for plaintiffs, effectively shifting the burden to them to produce formal, admissible expert testimony. Future plaintiffs must ensure they have expert affidavits or depositions to rebut such panel opinions, as informal statements or unsworn reports will not suffice to create a genuine issue of material fact. The ruling also underscores the critical importance of raising all legal arguments and designating relevant evidence to the trial court to prevent waiver on appeal.
