Surjit Singh, M.D., appeals from the trial court’s grant of a Motion to Correct Error filed by the plaintiffs below, Diane Lyday, Betsy Calderhead, and Cara Nichols (referred to collectively as the “Patients”). In granting this motion, the trial court vacated the jury’s verdict in favor of Singh on the Patients’ claims of malpractice, gross negligence, and battery, and ordered a new trial. On appeal, Singh argues that the trial court improperly granted this motion and improperly denied his motion for a judgment on the evidence. Concluding the trial court abused its discretion in ordering a new trial and that the trial court improperly denied Singh’s motion for judgment on the evidence on the Patients’ claims of malpractice and gross negligence, we reverse and remand with instructions that the trial court enter judgment on the evidence in favor of Singh on the malpractice and gross negligence claims and reinstate the jury’s verdict on the battery charge.
Conclusion (slip op. at 31-32): We conclude the trial court improperly denied Singh’s motion for judgment on the evidence on the Patients’ claims for medical malpractice and gross negligence. We therefore remand with instructions that the trial court enter judgment on the evidence in favor of Singh on these claims. We also conclude the trial court abused its discretion in granting a new trial based on its decisions to exclude evidence at trial. We therefore remand with instructions that the trial court reinstate the jury’s verdict in favor of Singh on the Patients’ claim for battery. The issue of newly discovered evidence raised in the Patients’ motion to correct errors, which the trial court may address on remand, does not affect the insufficiency of the evidence presented at trial to support the Patients’ claims of medical malpractice and gross negligence. Therefore, if the trial court chooses to grant the Patients’ motion to correct error based on their claim of newly discovered evidence, it should order a new trial on only their battery claim. Reversed and remanded.
DisclaimerADVERTISING MATERIAL www.boselaw.com/disclaimer
- Amish Litigants Forced to Honor Agreement
- Indiana Appellate Civil Case Law Summary (May 2012)
- U.S. Supreme Court Strikes Down FCC’s Indecency Determinations Against Fox And ABC
- Indiana Appellate Civil Case Law Summary (February 2012)
- Extraordinary Stay Against Newspaper Publication Should Raise Concern
- absolute privilege Advertising Injury Alternative Fee amish anonymous speech Antitrust Appeals Boehm Censorship CERCLA Class Actions Commercial Lines Policy Communications Law Defamation Discovery discovery tools Duty to Defend environmental cleanup FCC First Amendment Free Speech Indecency Indiana indiana court of appeals Indiana Supreme Court Internet Law Journalist's Privilege Justice Life Insurance Media Law Newsgathering objections public utility religious Res Judicata Sevnth Circuit sewer district Shepard Technology United States Supreme Court