Wolfe v. Estate of Custer Ex Rel. Custer
2007 WL 1544702, 867 N.E.2d 589, 2007 Ind. App. LEXIS 1143 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a medical malpractice claim proceeding under an 'increased risk of harm' theory, a plaintiff is not required to present expert testimony using the specific phrase 'substantial factor' for a jury to infer causation. Additionally, the submission of medical bills serves as prima facie evidence that the expenses were necessary, shifting the burden to the defendant to present evidence to the contrary.
Facts:
- On March 10, 1998, sixty-five-year-old Donald Custer went to an emergency room with severe abdominal pain, vomiting, an increased heart rate, and low blood pressure.
- Dr. Richard Wolfe, the ER physician, diagnosed Donald Custer with an acute gastrointestinal bleed and renal failure.
- An abdominal x-ray report showed signs consistent with a small bowel obstruction, but Dr. Wolfe recorded in the medical chart that the x-ray was normal.
- Based on his misdiagnosis, Dr. Wolfe failed to order an immediate surgical consultation, antibiotics, or provide sufficient IV fluid resuscitation.
- Hours later, Donald Custer was transferred to the ICU, where his blood pressure dropped dramatically.
- The following day, Donald Custer underwent surgery for a small bowel obstruction related to an internal hernia.
- Following the surgery, Donald Custer suffered multi-system organ failure, was placed in a drug-induced coma, required a ventilator, and remained hospitalized for over two months.
- Donald Custer's medical expenses for the two-month hospitalization totaled $331,238.27.
Procedural Posture:
- The Custers filed a proposed medical malpractice complaint against Dr. Wolfe with the Indiana Department of Insurance.
- The Medical Review Panel opined that Dr. Wolfe failed to comply with the standard of care but that his conduct was not a factor in the resulting damages.
- On March 9, 2000, the Custers filed a complaint for medical malpractice against Dr. Wolfe in the LaPorte Superior Court (trial court).
- Donald Custer died from an unrelated cause, and his estate was substituted as the plaintiff.
- A six-day jury trial was held in March 2006.
- At the close of the Custers' case-in-chief, Dr. Wolfe (defendant) moved for judgment on the evidence, which the trial court denied.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of the Custers (plaintiffs) for a total of $432,000.
- The trial court entered judgment on the jury's verdict.
- Dr. Wolfe filed a motion to correct error, which the trial court denied.
- Dr. Wolfe (appellant) appealed the 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 using the 'increased risk of harm' standard of causation, must a plaintiff present expert testimony that explicitly states the defendant's negligence was a 'substantial factor' in causing the harm and separately prove that the resulting medical expenses were causally related to the defendant's negligence?
Opinions:
Majority - Vaidik, J.
No. In a medical malpractice case under the 'increased risk of harm' standard, expert testimony does not need to use the specific legal term 'substantial factor' for a jury to find causation, and the standard itself supplants the traditional proximate cause analysis for damages. The court rejected what it termed a 'magic words' approach to proving causation, holding that once a plaintiff proves negligence and an increased risk of harm, the jury is permitted to decide whether the negligence was a substantial factor in causing the harm. Here, expert testimony described Wolfe's failures as initiating a 'cascade' of events leading to sepsis and multi-system organ failure. This was sufficient for the jury to infer that Wolfe's negligence was a substantial factor. Regarding damages, the court held that under the increased risk of harm theory (Restatement (Second) of Torts § 323), the traditional proximate cause analysis is replaced. Furthermore, under Indiana Evidence Rule 413, the submission of medical bills constitutes prima facie evidence that the charges were necessary. The burden then shifts to the defendant to offer evidence to the contrary, which Wolfe failed to do.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the viability of the 'increased risk of harm' theory of causation in Indiana medical malpractice law, particularly in cases where a patient already had a serious condition. It clarifies that the 'substantial factor' element is a question for the jury that can be inferred from the substance of expert testimony, rather than requiring experts to use specific legal terminology. This lowers the evidentiary bar for plaintiffs by preventing defendants from winning on a technicality if an expert fails to use 'magic words.' The ruling also streamlines the process of proving damages by affirming that medical bills are presumed necessary upon submission, placing the onus on the defendant to challenge them with contrary evidence.
