Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Whittington v. Magnante

Court of Appeals of Indiana

April 24, 2015

Jeannine Whittington, Personal Representative of the Estate of Robert J. Whittington, Deceased, and Jeannine Whittington, Individually, Appellants-Plaintiffs,
v.
David Magnante, M.D., and Magnante Eye Care, Appellees-Defendants

Appeal from the Montgomery Circuit Court. The Honorable Bruce Stengel, Special Judge. Cause No. 54C01-1210-PL-942.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: James E. Ayers, Wernle, Ristine & Ayers, Crawfordsville, Indiana.

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES: David G. Field, Justin C. Wiler, Schultz & Pogue, LLP, Indianapolis, Indiana.

Sharpnack, Senior Judge. Bailey, J., and Pyle, J., concur.

OPINION

Sharpnack, Senior Judge

Statement of the Case

[¶1] Jeannine Whittington, personal representative of the Estate of Robert J. Whittington, deceased, and Jeannine Whittington, in her individual capacity (collectively, " the Plaintiffs" ), appeal from the trial court's order appearing to grant a motion filed by David Magnante, M.D., and Magnante Eye Care (collectively " the Defendants" ). Because we lack jurisdiction over this appeal, we dismiss.

Facts and Procedural History

[¶2] The Plaintiffs filed a medical malpractice action against the Defendants on October 26, 2012, after going through the Medical Review Panel process. The Defendants requested to take the deposition of the Plaintiffs' expert, Dr. Peter Hovland, an ophthalmologist. A discovery dispute arose between the parties about who should bear the expense of Dr. Hovland's deposition preparation time.

Page 768

[¶3] The Defendants filed a motion and brief with the trial court on December 2, 2013 requesting the trial court to order that the Defendants' compensation to the Plaintiffs' expert be limited to a reasonable hourly rate for time spent in being deposed but not including time spent in preparing to be deposed. After the Plaintiffs filed a response to the Defendants' motion, the trial court after hearing argument entered its order.

[¶4]The trial court's order reads as follows:

This matter came before the Court on Motion of Defendants, David Magnate [sic], M.D., and Magnante Eye Care, Regarding Discovery Dispute Over Payment of Plaintiff's [sic] Expert's Fees for Time to be Spent Preparing for His Deposition, and the Court being duly advised in the premises, NOW FINDS that:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Defendant's [sic] Motion regarding discovery dispute over payment of expert's fees is DENIED. Defendants are not required to pay for the time Plaintiff's [sic] ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.