In 1980, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled that Indiana’s statutory cap on medical malpractice awards is constitutional. The Indiana Court of Appeals has now ruled in October of this year that
a plaintiff is entitled to an evidentiary hearing about whether Indiana’s statutory cap on medical malpractice awards is unconstitutional. If the plaintiff is successful in his challenge, health care providers in Indiana would face increased, if not unlimited, exposure in damages. (more…)
Posts Tagged ‘Chad M. Smith’
Challenging the Constitutionality of the Indiana Medical Malpractice Damages Cap
Tuesday, November 29th, 2011Apologies and Admissions: What’s the Difference?
Thursday, September 15th, 2011For most individuals, it is not easy to admit when they have done something wrong and someone else suffers. But, when someone suffers and an individual did not do anything wrong, then it is easy to tell the suffering person that we are sorry they are going through a tough time. In litigation, including medical malpractice cases, the defendants (who are accused of doing wrong) and their attorneys are leery to express empathy for the plaintiffs or their families out of fear that the expression will be taken as an admission of wrongdoing. So, is there really a difference between an apology for an adverse event and an admission of fault? (more…)
A Windfall Attorney Fees Contract Provision is Unenforceable
Thursday, April 28th, 2011Typically, parties to a lawsuit are responsible for the payment of their own attorney fees, expenses and costs associated with the legal action. The exception to this general rule is if a contract or statute allows the prevailing party to recover that party’s attorney fees, expenses and costs. That is why parties often include a contract provision that allows the prevailing party to recover attorney fees, costs and expenses for enforcing the contract. However, there have been occasions where Indiana courts will strike down an attorney fees provision of contract if it is ambiguous or otherwise unenforceable. (more…)
Update on Red Flags Rule for Healthcare Providers
Thursday, November 11th, 2010This past summer, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) extended the enforcement deadline for the Red Flags Rule through December 31, 2010. In addition, Congress is considering legislation that would affect the scope of entities covered by the rule. Specifically, Congress is considering legislation that would exempt physicians, dentists and veterinarians from the FTC’s Red Flags Rule. As the newest deadline draws near, you will need to follow up to see if the deadline will be imposed or extended once again or if Congress will act to exempt health care providers, dentists and veterinarians. (more…)
Doctors – Beware of the “Innocent” Deposition
Thursday, July 15th, 2010A relative new trend in medical malpractice litigation involving the use of depositions of physicians could have ramifications for the testifying physician, who is not yet a party to a lawsuit, once the deposition has been completed. (more…)
Yet Another Reason Why it is Important to Safeguard Patients’ Medical Records
Monday, May 24th, 2010The Indiana Court of Appeals decision in Howard Regional Health System d/b/a Howard Community Hospital, Charles G. Marler, M.D., and Community Family Health Center v. Jacob Z. Gordon b/n/f Lisa Gordon gives even more incentive for health care providers to protect patients’ medical records. Failure to maintain a patient’s medical record for at least seven years or during a medical malpractice lawsuit could be costly to health care providers in more ways than one. (more…)