LLOYD G. PERRY, Appellant-Plaintiff,
ANONYMOUS PHYSICIAN 1, ALIAS MEDICAL GROUP 1, LLC, ANONYMOUS PA-C, ANONYMOUS HOSPITAL 1, INC., ANONYMOUS PHYSICIAN 2, ANONYMOUS MEDICAL PRACTICE 1, ANONYMOUS MEDICAL FACILITY 1, ANONYMOUS PHYSICIAN 3, ANONYMOUS SERVICE PROVIDER 1, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE and RESPECTIVE UN-NAMED CARRIERS, ANONYMOUS PHYSICIAN 4, ANONYMOUS SERVICE PROVIDER 1, ANONYMOUS HOSPITAL 1, INC., ANONYMOUS PHYSICIAN 5, ANONYMOUS MEDICAL PRACTICE 2, BOIS BLANC 1, LLC, BOIS BLANC 2, LLC and ANONYMOUS MEDICAL GROUP 2, LLC, Appellees-Defendants
APPEAL FROM THE ALLEN SUPERIOR COURT. The Honorable David J. Avery, Judge. Cause No. 02D01-1110-CT-501.
LLOYD G. PERRY, APPELLANT, Pro Se, Fort Wayne, Indiana.
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES: Attorneys for Anonymous Hospital 1, Inc., and Anonymous Medical, Facility 1, Inc., MARK W. BAEVERSTAD, ANDREW L. PALMISON, Rothberg Logan & Warsco LLP, Fort Wayne, Indiana; Attorneys for Anonymous Physician 1, Alias Medical Group 1, LLC and, Anonymous Physician 6, JASON A. SCHEELE, JESSICA L. PIXLER, Rothbert Logan & Warsco, LLP, Fort Wayne, Indiana; Attorneys for Anonymous Physician 2, Anonymous Medical Practice 1, Anonymous Physician 5 and, Anonymous Medical Practice 2, BENJAMIN D. ICE, WILLIAM A. RAMSEY, Murphy Ice, LLP, Fort Wayne, Indiana.
MAY, Judge. KIRSCH, J., and BAILEY, J., concur.
In June 2010, Lloyd Perry filed with the Department of Insurance a proposed complaint alleging malpractice by a number of physicians and other healthcare providers (collectively, " the Providers" ). As Perry did not provide expert testimony to rebut the medical review panel's opinion there was no malpractice that caused his injury, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Perry brought a proposed medical malpractice complaint in 2010 and amended it in January 2011 to add more defendants. The medical review panel unanimously found all the defendants except one hospital met the appropriate standard of care. It found the conduct of the hospital that did not meet the standard of care was not a factor in Perry's injuries. The Providers moved for summary judgment. Perry submitted a brief in response, but the record does not reflect he designated expert testimony to rebut the panel's findings. The trial court granted the Providers' motions. Perry's motion to correct error was denied.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
Summary judgment is appropriate only if there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Oelling v. Rao, 593 N.E.2d 189, 190 (Ind. 1992); Ind. Trial Rule 56(C). The burden is on the moving party to prove the nonexistence of a genuine issue of material fact; if there is any doubt, the motion should be resolved in favor of the party opposing the motion. Oelling, 593 N.E.2d at 190. Once the movant has sustained this burden, however, the opponent may not rest on the mere allegations or denials in his pleadings, but must respond by setting forth specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial. Id. In a medical malpractice action based on negligence the plaintiff must establish 1) a duty on the part of the defendant in relation to the plaintiff; 2) failure on the part of defendant to conform its conduct to the requisite standard of care required by the relationship; and 3) an injury to the plaintiff resulting from that failure. Id. In support of their motions for summary judgment, the Providers submitted the opinion of the medical review panel, which determined all the Providers except one hospital met the standard of care, and any breach by that hospital was not a factor in the damages Perry claimed. That ...