Articles Posted in Personal Injury

A missed diagnosis is one of the most common forms of medical mistakes made by doctors and other health care providers, accounting for a substantial number of Indiana medical malpractice lawsuits. One study published in the journal BMJ Quality & Safety revealed that nearly 12 million adults seeking outpatient medical care are misdiagnosed, which works out to about 1 in every 20 adult patients. Roughly half of those have the potential to result in serious harm.injury attorney

Recently in Indiana, a federal jury awarded $15 million to a woman (and her husband) who claimed a radiologist and imaging center were negligent in failing to identify a tumor for a full 18 months, resulting in a substantial reduction in her survival chances. Following a four-day verdict, jurors in the case of Webster v. CDI Indiana, LLC, before the U.S. District Court Southern District of Indiana Indianapolis Division, jurors found the diagnostic center was liable for the conduct of the doctor who didn’t find the tumor in a CT scan she underwent in late 2014. The tumor was ultimately discovered in 2016 – more than a-year-and-a-half later.

The initial question in these medical malpractice lawsuits isn’t necessarily whether doctors or other health care providers got it wrong or even how severely you were hurt. The issue is whether those actions met or fell short of the applicable standard of care, given provider’s specialty, education, resources and region. Jurors were asked to consider whether a similarly-situated, prudent provider would have responded the same in similar or identical circumstances. Here, jurors determined the doctor’s actions fell below the applicable standard of care, reducing plaintiff’s chance of survival, her options for treatment and inflicting serious physical pain and emotional suffering. Continue reading

Less than two years ago, the Indiana Supreme Court issued two injury law opinions that reshaped the foreseeability criteria courts consider when weighing premises liability lawsuits.gavel

Premises liability is predicated on the legal theory that businesses and/ or property owners have a duty of care to shield invited customers or guests from an unreasonable risk of harm. The element of a “duty of care” is the foundation for any lawsuit alleging negligence, as is the breach of duty and the fact that the breach caused the injury. In premises liability cases in particular, foreseeability of danger is what establishes the duty.

The new test model was outlined in a pair of 2016 rulings – Goodwin v. Yeakle’s Sports Bar & Grills, Inc. and Rogers v. Martin. It’s particularly relevant to those cases stemming from a third-party criminal attack on someone else’s property. In both cases, the state high court established that courts must decide as a matter of law (by the judge) rather than as a matter of fact (by the jury) whether the injury in question was foreseeable by analyzing a broad type of harm and a broad type of plaintiff. This differs substantially from the previous approach, which relied on fact-sensitive inquiries. Those two cases have been cited as precedent-setting in a number of recent Indiana premises liability cases. Continue reading

Defendants in a Munster wrongful death lawsuit are asking the Indiana Supreme Court to weigh in on whether a woman who drowned in the pastors’ pool was an independent contractor or an employee of the pastors or the church. The answer to that question matters because under Indiana’s Workers’ Compensation Law, workers’ compensation death benefits would be considered the exclusive remedy for an employee killed in the course and scope of employment. However, independent contractors in Indiana aren’t entitled to workers’ compensation, and they would thus have the right to file a lawsuit against the company. swimming pool

As our attorneys can explain, there are some key differences between the two types of cases. On the positive side, with workers’ compensation, one does not need to prove the defendant/employer did anything wrong (i.e., was negligent). It’s a no-fault system, and payments should be made as long as the injury or death arose out of and in the course of one’s employment. However, recipients of death benefits cannot pursue certain types of damages, such as pain and suffering, loss of life enjoyment, or loss of consortium. Those damages are available in an Indiana wrongful death case.

Here, the plaintiff (the decedent’s mother) is asserting she was an independent contractor, and therefore the exclusive remedy provision of the law doesn’t apply, so she is free to pursue her claim in state court. The church is arguing she was an employee, and the exclusive remedy rule does apply, so the claim must be weighed by the state’s Workers’ Compensation Board.

The pre-existing obesity and smoking habits of an Indiana pizzeria employee injured at work didn’t prevent the worker’s ability to receive temporary total disability benefits when the employer failed to produce evidence showing the weight problem or other issues impaired his health or required medical intervention prior to the workplace injury. restaurant This was supported by a 2009 ruling by the Indiana Court of Appeals that highlighted a common tactic by employers and workers’ compensation insurers following a workplace accident resulting in injury or illness. It involves turning it all around on the worker, making it seem as if his or her own “poor choices” or habits were in fact the catalyst for the worker’s health problems. It’s an approach designed to eliminate or minimize the insurer’s liability for the worker’s injury – even when there is no question a work accident happened and resulted in injuries.

Injuries are common among restaurant cooks, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. There are approximately 26,500 restaurant cooks in Indiana, with injuries regularly reported, including:

  • Slips, trips, and falls;
  • Burns;
  • Cuts;
  • Exposure to chemicals;
  • Assault (due to basic lack of security);
  • Ergonomic hazards.

But that list isn’t exhaustive. In this Indiana workers’ compensation case, the claimant was employed as a cook at the defendant restaurant when he was accidentally struck in the back by a freezer door. As a result of this incident, he suffered a lower back injury. The injury was immediately reported, and the cook was sent for medical treatment. At the time of this incident, the 25-year-old plaintiff was six feet tall, weighed about 340 pounds, and smoked roughly 30 cigarettes daily.  Continue reading

An Indiana nursing home neglect lawsuit alleges the facility responsible for a 75-year-old amputee resident’s care failed in its duty, resulting in her death as a result of a fall in the shower. shower

According to CNHI News Indiana, the resident, who had one leg, was taken to the shower by a staff member in March 2017 and left to stand on her single leg with no assistance. Nursing home staffers reportedly found her some time later on the shower floor, her leg twisted and in agony. She was diagnosed with a displaced spiral fracture of the femur, although initially, staffers decided to place her back into bed before calling 911. Her family alleges the staffers told dispatchers they did not witness the fall, but they later filed false documentation indicating they had seen the fall, which occurred because she let go of her wheelchair. She underwent surgery two days later, remained in a debilitated state for months, and then died in June 2017. That incident reportedly marked her 16th fall at the facility since she entered it two years earlier. A wrongful death lawsuit alleges her passing was a direct and proximate result of nursing home staffers’ actions and inaction, and further that state health department citations for violations of federal quality-of-care regulations are evidence of callous disregard for patient rights, safety, welfare, and dignity.

Indiana nursing home falls are a serious problem affecting elderly and disabled residents. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports 1,800 older adults in nursing homes die annually from fall-related injuries. Those who do survive often suffer hip fractures and head injuries that lead to serious and permanent disabilities.

Work injuries in Indiana occur at a rate of 3.5 per 100 full-time workers. The good news is that’s the lowest it’s been in decades, and a decrease of nearly 70 percent since 1992. The bad news is that still amounts to more than 84,000 Hoosier workers suffering an OSHA-recordable injury or illness each year, according to the Indiana Department of Laborconstruction worker

These injuries are often serious, with nearly half resulting in one or more days away from work or requiring a job transfer or restriction. The most dangerous jobs in Indiana, according to these numbers, are in the sectors of:

  • Transportation and warehousing

If you are a victim of violence in Indiana leading to injuries, you are probably aware that a pending criminal case against your attacker(s) could involve an order of restitution upon a conviction. What you may not know is that you have further legal options in a civil lawsuit.bar

Individuals who are deemed liable for the injuries of another person – whether through negligence or intentional conduct – can be ordered in civil court to cover damages for medical bills, lost wages, and pain and suffering. This is separate and apart from any order of restitution in a criminal court, since the two operate independently of each other. While no insurance company will pay for the cost of intentional injuries inflicted by an insured, they could be responsible to cover third-party liability in such a case. For example, if you are injured at a bar in an attack by a fellow patron, you may have grounds to sue the bar itself in an Indiana premises liability claim if there is evidence such an incident was foreseeable, and the bar’s security was inadequate.

It’s often in a victim’s best interest to explore civil injury case options, since restitution orders often only take into account actual damages and often do not calculate payouts based on intangible losses, such as pain and suffering and mental anguish.

An Indiana dentist, under fire for allegedly over-billing Medicaid and over-treating patients, will not have to face a civil trial for at least three of those patients, after their Indiana medical malpractice claim was shot down for failing to comply with the statute of limitations.dentist

In a recent decision, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled the plaintiffs’ claim could not proceed because it was not filed within the two-year window allowed for claims involving medical negligence and personal injury.

According to the joint complaint filed by three patients treated by the defendant dentist in January 2012, one claimant underwent conscious sedation for the removal of a single tooth, only to awaken and learn the dentist had removed 11 teeth. In the other two cases, both patients agreed to the removal of all of their teeth, but only because the dentist told them if they did not, they would be at immediate risk of heart attack, stroke, or death.

A default judgment in an Indiana personal injury lawsuit can occur when there is a failure to take action by one of the involved parties. In most cases, it’s a judgment in favor of the plaintiff (the injured person) when the defendant (the tortfeasor/alleged wrongdoer) has failed to respond to a summons or appear in court. shopping cart

This was exactly what occurred in a recent Gary injury lawsuit considered by the Indiana Court of Appeals. The case involved a grocery store injury at the store involving a defective shopping cart.

The appellate court records don’t spell out many details from the original complaint, except that the plaintiff suffered injuries as a result of using a malfunctioning shopping cart at the store. She filed a personal injury lawsuit against the store, alleging they were liable for her injuries on the basis of premises liability.

Continue reading

It’s been nearly six years since a deadly stage collapse at the Indiana State Fair killed seven concertgoers and injured 58 others in Indianapolis. Now, the Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled as a matter of law the company paid to provide security to the main event band, Sugarland, could not have reasonably foreseen the collapse of the stage. That ruling in a recent case is one of the last of several personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits filed against some three dozen defendants as a result of the horrific accident. concert

Back in 2014, attorneys for several of those injured and relatives of some killed reached a $50 million settlement against 19 of 20 defendants, including the state of Indiana, which paid $11 million. The details of how that settlement was paid out (which plaintiffs received what) was kept confidential. It was noteworthy not just for the size of the damages awarded, but also for the fact it was the first time in Indiana a lesbian widow received a settlement for the wrongful death of her wife.

The incident occurred in August 2011 when the opening act had just finished, and Sugarland was preparing to take the stage. A large gust of wind from an approaching severe thunderstorm hit the stage’s temporary roof structure, which caused it to collapse, landing on many in the crowd. The issue of foreseeability was raised because there were numerous reports, notices, and warnings throughout the day of the concert from the National Weather Service, indicating that severe thunderstorms were likely. These messages were received by state fair officials through the automated text messaging system.

Continue reading