51ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø

Plaintiff dismissed medical malpractice lawsuit.

Represented a restoration company alleged to have negligently failed to remediate water damage.

The Indiana Supreme Court ruled that our Church client was entitled to summary judgment after a volunteer was injured on its property, finding that the limited duty of care under Indiana Code § 34-31-7-2 applied because the church’s premises as a whole were used primarily for worship. Since there was no evidence of hidden dangers or intentional harm, the Court held that the Church was not liable.

Obtained summary judgment for our client, a bakery, in a negligence action.

Plaintiff was hospitalized for approximately six weeks in 2021 after becoming infected with COVID-19 and suffering severe complications from the virus. During his hospitalization, which required immobilization and use of a ventilator, the Plaintiff developed a severe pressure injury on his buttocks. As a result, he alleged that he received negligent medical care and treatment from his numerous medical providers. However, the trial court, and the Indiana Court of Appeals, determined that the medical providers were immune from liability under both Indiana and federal statutes because Plaintiff was receiving certain medical treatment in response to, arising from, or related to the Covid-19 public health emergency. 

Defended a brokerage firm against claims of breach of fiduciary duty and fraud following a home sale in which the homeowner, who is an independent contractor of our client, acted as the broker for the sale. However, our client could not be liable where the buyers explicitly consented to the limited agency relationship for the purpose of the transaction and because our client never made any material misrepresentations of fact to the homebuyers.

Secured summary judgment in favor of a gas station in a lawsuit concerning allegations of negligent training and supervision.

Plaintiff filed a dental malpractice action on behalf of her daughter. A bench trial was conducted, which resulted in judgment for the defense. Plaintiff appealed as a matter of right, and the appeal was dismissed with prejudice due to the Plaintiff’s flagrant non-compliance with appellate rules and procedure.

Obtained summary judgment and appellate win for a physician and surgical group. The physician was accused of negligently reporting elder abuse. Indiana has a statute that creates immunity for such actions in certain circumstances. There is very little case law to explain the scope and exceptions to the immunity. The Trial Court agreed that immunity applied. The plaintiff appealed and the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed.

Summary judgment obtained in favor of retailer in a wrongful death case.

The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the Monroe County Circuit Court’s dismissal of a negligence lawsuit against our construction company client.

This matter involves a dental malpractice claim against a periodontist, in which the Plaintiff alleges that she experienced symptoms that included sleeplessness, nerve pain, mental confusion, dizziness, etc. as a result of the periodontist’s decision to prescribe Levaquin as a prophylactic antibiotic prior to the Plaintiff’s dental implant procedure. Plaintiff alleged that the Periodontist breached the standard of care by prescribing Levaquin, by failing to provide Plaintiff with informed consent as to the risks of this antibiotic, and by delaying in issuing a stop-use instruction to Plaintiff.  Following a unanimous Medical Review Panel opinion in favor of the Periodontist, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit. We then filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, which the trial court granted on the basis that the expert witnesses designated by Plaintiff, which consisted of two physicians and a dentist, were not qualified to opine on the standard of care as required under Indiana law. Furthermore, the fact that Plaintiff admittedly read all risks regarding the antibiotic before she took the medication only further negated the informed consent claim. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

This matter involved a chiropractic malpractice claim relating to an allegation of negligent treatment resulting in a cervical spine fracture. The case centered on the element of causation, namely that the origin of the compression fracture, was complicated by the patient’s metastatic bone cancer. A licensed physician offered an opinion on behalf of the defense that the cancer was the cause of the fracture; in turn, Plaintiff designated a physical therapist (DPT) to provide an opinion to the contrary. However, as both the trial court and Court of Appeals determined, which opinions remain in-tact following the Supreme Court’s decision not to accept transfer, Plaintiff’s expert physical therapist was not qualified under the Rules of Evidence to offer an opinion on causation because such a complicated medical question, in addition to a question centering on subjective complaints of pain, required the expert opinion of a physician licensed to practice medicine. Because Plaintiff failed to designate a qualified medical opinion on the essential element of causation, defendant was entitled to summary judgment.

In October 2022, partial summary judgment was affirmed in a matter involving a negligence action against our client (a general contractor), stemming from the severe job-site injuries sustained by another contractor’s employee. Both the trial court and the Indiana Court of Appeals found that our client did not, pursuant to its contract with the project owner, assume a duty of care to ensure the workplace safety of the project owner’s other contractors/sub-contractors or their employees.

In March 2023, the Indiana Supreme Court denied the plaintiff’s petition to transfer. The Supreme Court’s denial established that there was no merit to further review of the case because the Court of Appeals’ correctly decided it. This case established precedent for the entire state.

Summary judgment affirmed in favor of our chiropractor client.

Summary judgment affirmed in favor of our periodontist client in dental malpractice claim.

Partial summary judgment was affirmed in a matter involving a negligence action against our client (a general contractor), stemming from the severe job-site injuries sustained by another contractor’s employee. Both the trial court and t