Vogler v. Dominguez
1993 WL 489156, 1993 Ind. App. LEXIS 1427, 624 N.E.2d 56 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a medical malpractice claim, an expert witness's testimony is sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment if it establishes a breach of the standard of care, even if the expert is not a specialist in the defendant's specific field. However, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur cannot be applied against one defendant, such as a hospital, when other non-party, non-employee medical professionals shared control over the patient and could have been the negligent actors.
Facts:
- After a fall resulted in a cerebrospinal fluid leak, Allen Vogler underwent surgery to repair it on October 16, 1989.
- The surgery, a right frontal craniotomy, was performed by Dr. Pedro R. Dominguez at Deaconess Hospital.
- Following the surgery, Vogler experienced pain and loss of motor function in his left arm.
- Vogler was subsequently diagnosed with a brachial plexus stretch, a type of nerve injury.
- The Voglers alleged that the injury was caused by the negligent positioning or manipulation of Allen Vogler's body during or immediately after the surgery.
- Other medical professionals present during the surgery included an assisting neurosurgeon, an anesthesiologist, and a physician's assistant, none of whom were named as defendants.
Procedural Posture:
- Allen A. Vogler and Jane M. Vogler filed a medical malpractice action 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 to establish negligence.
- The Voglers filed a brief in opposition to the motions, designating expert depositions and affidavits as evidence.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of both Dr. Dominguez and Deaconess Hospital.
- The Voglers, as appellants, appealed the trial court's grant 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:
In a medical malpractice case, does a plaintiff create a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to defeat summary judgment by presenting expert testimony that the injury would not ordinarily occur absent negligence, and can the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur be applied against a hospital when non-employee medical professionals who were also in control of the patient are not parties to the lawsuit?
Opinions:
Majority - Robertson, J.
Yes, as to Dr. Dominguez; No, as to Deaconess Hospital. A plaintiff creates a genuine issue of material fact against a surgeon by presenting an expert who, despite some contradictory statements, has sufficient experience to opine on the standard of care and breach. However, a plaintiff cannot rely on res ipsa loquitur against a hospital when other non-party, non-employee medical professionals had shared control, making it impossible to infer that the hospital's employees were more probably than not the negligent actors. Reasoning for Dr. Dominguez: The court found that the plaintiffs' expert, Dr. Seligson, provided sufficient testimony to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding Dr. Dominguez's negligence. Although Dr. Seligson was an orthopedic surgeon, not a neurosurgeon, and made some inconsistent statements in his deposition, he had performed similar surgeries and testified that Vogler's injury was not an expected outcome and would not have occurred if the standard of care had been met. Citing precedent, the court held that an expert's general knowledge of a subject makes their testimony admissible, and specific knowledge goes to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility. A bare assertion of familiarity with the standard of care is adequate to resist summary judgment. Reasoning for Deaconess Hospital: The Voglers failed to defeat summary judgment against the hospital. First, they did not specifically designate evidence of direct negligence by hospital employees. Second, their attempt to use the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur failed on the element of 'exclusive control.' The evidence showed that the anesthesiologist and assisting surgeon, who were not hospital employees and not defendants, also shared responsibility for positioning the patient. Because it was reasonably probable that one of these non-parties was negligent, a jury could not infer that the hospital's employees were 'more probably than not' the cause of the injury. Furthermore, the Voglers presented no expert testimony on the standard of care for surgical nurses, which would be necessary to argue the nurses should have recognized and reported a breach by the surgeons.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the evidentiary threshold required for a medical malpractice plaintiff to survive summary judgment in Indiana. It establishes that an expert's testimony need not be flawless or from a physician in the exact same specialty to create a triable issue of fact against a doctor. Conversely, the ruling significantly limits the application of res ipsa loquitur in complex medical settings, particularly against institutional defendants like hospitals. By requiring plaintiffs to effectively rule out the negligence of non-party, non-employee actors who shared control, the case makes it more difficult to hold hospitals vicariously liable for injuries when multiple independent practitioners are involved in patient care.
