Vogler v. Dominguez
1993 WL 489156, 1993 Ind. App. LEXIS 1427, 624 NE2d 56 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a medical malpractice claim, an expert witness may establish the standard of care to defeat summary judgment against a surgeon even if not from the same specialty. However, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur cannot be used to infer negligence against a hospital if the plaintiff fails to sue all parties who shared control over the patient during the injury-causing procedure.
Facts:
- Allen Vogler suffered a fall that resulted in a cerebrospinal fluid leak.
- On October 16, 1989, Dr. Pedro R. Dominguez performed a right frontal craniotomy on Allen Vogler at Deaconess Hospital to repair the leak.
- During the surgery, Vogler's head was stabilized in a Mayfield head frame, which dictated the position of his body.
- Following the surgery, Vogler experienced a loss of motor function and pain in his left arm.
- Vogler was subsequently diagnosed with a brachial plexus stretch, a nerve injury in the upper arm and shoulder area.
- The Voglers alleged this injury resulted from the negligent placement or manipulation of his body while he was under the exclusive control of the defendants during surgery or recovery.
Procedural Posture:
- Allen and Jane Vogler filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against Dr. Pedro R. Dominguez and Deaconess Hospital in an Indiana trial court.
- Both Dr. Dominguez and Deaconess Hospital filed motions for summary judgment, arguing the Voglers had insufficient evidence of negligence.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of both Dr. Dominguez and Deaconess Hospital, dismissing the Voglers' case.
- The Voglers (appellants) appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the Court of Appeals of Indiana, with Dr. Dominguez and the hospital as appellees.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a medical malpractice case, is summary judgment for the defendants appropriate when the plaintiff presents expert testimony that the injury ordinarily does not occur without negligence and relies on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, but does not sue all parties who had control over the patient during the procedure?
Opinions:
Majority - Robertson, J.
No as to Dr. Dominguez; Yes as to Deaconess Hospital. Summary judgment is inappropriate for the surgeon because the plaintiff's expert testimony created a genuine issue of material fact as to the standard of care, but it is appropriate for the hospital because the plaintiff failed to establish the hospital's exclusive control required for the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. The court reasoned that the expert testimony from Dr. Seligson, an orthopedic surgeon, was sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding the standard of care for Dr. Dominguez, a neurosurgeon. The court held that an expert’s competency is determined by general knowledge of the subject matter, and any lack of specific knowledge of the specialty goes to the weight of the testimony, not its admissibility. Thus, summary judgment for Dr. Dominguez was improper. Regarding the hospital, the Voglers failed to designate specific evidence of direct negligence by hospital employees and instead relied on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. While the expert testimony established that Vogler's injury does not ordinarily occur without negligence, the Voglers failed to establish the 'exclusive control' element. The evidence showed that the anesthesiologist, who was not a hospital employee and was not sued, shared control and played a primary role in positioning the patient. Because a non-defendant could have been the sole negligent actor, a jury could not reasonably infer that the injury was more probably than not caused by the negligence of a hospital employee, making res ipsa loquitur inapplicable and summary judgment for the hospital appropriate.
Concurring - Baker, J.
Concurred with the majority opinion without a separate written opinion.
Concurring - Sullivan, J.
Concurred in the result without a separate written opinion.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies two important aspects of Indiana medical malpractice litigation. First, it lowers the barrier for expert testimony at the summary judgment stage, establishing that an expert need not be in the same specialty as the defendant to create a triable issue of fact on the standard of care. Second, and more significantly, it places a crucial limitation on the use of res ipsa loquitur in cases with multiple potential tortfeasors. The ruling serves as a strong cautionary tale for plaintiffs' attorneys to join all potentially responsible parties (surgeons, anesthesiologists, assistants, etc.) in a malpractice suit to prevent a defendant like a hospital from defeating a res ipsa loquitur claim by pointing to an absent party who also had control.
