“Where recovery is limited to damages for increased risk of harm because the patient stood less than a 50% chance of recovery prior to encountering the physician’s negligence, the trial court may consider evidence of the patient’s underlying risk in order to determine the appropriate amount of damages.”
Appeals
Jimerson v. State, No. 52A02-1510-CR-1538, __N.E.3d__ (Ind. Ct. App., June 23, 2016).
“Where a jury is able to apply concepts without further assistance, highlighting individual exchanges or vouching for the truth or falsity of particular evidence is invasive.”
Hurley v. State, No. 49A05-1601-CR-108, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 30, 2016).
Defendant’s inability to give a sufficient sample on a chemical breath test after being suspected of driving under the influence was a refusal to take the test.
Staggs v. Buxbaum, No. 47A04-1510-PL-1758, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 28, 2016).
Crime Victim Relief Act (CVRA) damages are distinct from common law punitive damages; court properly awarded CVRA damages after making an “assessment of criminality.”
Anonymous M.D. v Lockridge, No. 39A01-1509-CT-1498, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 29, 2016).
Derivative medical malpractice claim of decedent’s children was not time-barred because the children were under the age of six at the time of the alleged negligence and under the age of eight at the time of the filing of the complaint.