Lee filed a proposed complaint with the Indiana Department of Insurance on December 12, 2012, alleging that the Doctor was negligent in failing to diagnose him with PTSD.

The Doctor filed a petition in the Lake County Superior court requesting a preliminary determination of law and filed a motion for summary judgment. On May 15, 2013, Lee requested a change of venue to St.

The undisputed facts designated for summary judgment reveal that the Doctor did not treat Lee at any time after July 27, 2010. Consequently, the alleged negligence could only have occurred on or before that date.

Using the section 323 analysis, a plaintiff must show that the doctor was negligent, the negligent act increased the risk of harm to the patient, and the negligence was a substantial factor causing the plaintiff’s harm.

Our supreme court held that the plaintiff’s claim 1 The Estate argues that Boggs and Overton are distinguishable because neither involved the negligence of a physician with an ongoing patient-physician relationship and Kleckner had

Generally, in order to establish a claim of medical malpractice, the plaintiff must establish by expert medical testimony (1) the applicable standard of care required by Indiana law, (2) how the defendant doctor breached that standard

of care, and (3) that the defendant doctor’s negligence in doing so was the proximate cause of the injuries complained of.

When the defendant doctor is the moving party and can show that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to any one of the aforementioned elements, the defendant doctor is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.

Analysis The controversy between the parties distills to whether Shipley’s action was timely commenced in accordance with the Act, which requires claims to be filed within two years of the allegedly negligent act or omission.

Anonymous Doctor A and Anonymous Hospital C point out that Shipley’s surgeries preceded her filing of the proposed complaint with the IDOI by more than two years.7 Shipley responds that she attempted 7 The filing of a proposed

We think that loss of chance is better understood as a description of the injury than as either a term for a separate cause of action or a surrogate for the causation element of a negligence claim.

If a plaintiff seeks recovery specifically for what the plaintiff alleges the doctor to have caused, i.e., a decrease in the patient’s probability of recovery, rather than for the ultimate 16 outcome, causation is no longer debatable

James argued during the trial and reiterates the argument on appeal that the physicians and staff at Clarian altered documents pertaining to James’s care and fraudulently concealed the precise nature of Clarian’s negligence to Jessica

It is well settled that, “[i]n a medical malpractice action based on ordinary negligence, the plaintiff must establish (1) a duty on the part of the defendant physician in relation to the plaintiff, (2) failure of the physician

He was still living in the home when doctors diagnosed N.S. with failure to thrive. We are unconvinced by Father’s argument that N.S. was removed solely because of Mother’s negligence.