Katherine M. Haire

This matter involves a dental malpractice claim against a periodontist, in which the Plaintiff alleges that she experienced symptoms that included sleeplessness, nerve pain, mental confusion, dizziness, etc. as a result of the periodontist’s decision to prescribe Levaquin as a prophylactic antibiotic prior to the Plaintiff’s dental implant procedure. Plaintiff alleged that the Periodontist breached the standard of care by prescribing Levaquin, by failing to provide Plaintiff with informed consent as to the risks of this antibiotic, and by delaying in issuing a stop-use instruction to Plaintiff.  Following a unanimous Medical Review Panel opinion in favor of the Periodontist, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit. We then filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, which the trial court granted on the basis that the expert witnesses designated by Plaintiff, which consisted of two physicians and a dentist, were not qualified to opine on the standard of care as required under Indiana law. Furthermore, the fact that Plaintiff admittedly read all risks regarding the antibiotic before she took the medication only further negated the informed consent claim. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

This matter involved a chiropractic malpractice claim relating to an allegation of negligent treatment resulting in a cervical spine fracture. The case centered on the element of causation, namely that the origin of the compression fracture, was complicated by the patient’s metastatic bone cancer. A licensed physician offered an opinion on behalf of the defense that the cancer was the cause of the fracture; in turn, Plaintiff designated a physical therapist (DPT) to provide an opinion to the contrary. However, as both the trial court and Court of Appeals determined, which opinions remain in-tact following the Supreme Court’s decision not to accept transfer, Plaintiff’s expert physical therapist was not qualified under the Rules of Evidence to offer an opinion on causation because such a complicated medical question, in addition to a question centering on subjective complaints of pain, required the expert opinion of a physician licensed to practice medicine. Because Plaintiff failed to designate a qualified medical opinion on the essential element of causation, defendant was entitled to summary judgment.

In October 2022, partial summary judgment was affirmed in a matter involving a negligence action against our client (a general contractor), stemming from the severe job-site injuries sustained by another contractor’s employee. Both the trial court and the Indiana Court of Appeals found that our client did not, pursuant to its contract with the project owner, assume a duty of care to ensure the workplace safety of the project owner’s other contractors/sub-contractors or their employees.

In March 2023, the Indiana Supreme Court denied the plaintiff’s petition to transfer. The Supreme Court’s denial established that there was no merit to further review of the case because the Court of Appeals’ correctly decided it. This case established precedent for the entire state.

Summary judgment affirmed in favor of our chiropractor client.

Summary judgment affirmed in favor of our periodontist client in dental malpractice claim.

Partial summary judgment was affirmed in a matter involving a negligence action against our client (a general contractor), stemming from the severe job-site injuries sustained by another contractor’s employee. Both the trial court and the Indiana Court of Appeals found that our client did not, pursuant to its contract with the project owner, assume a duty of care to ensure the workplace safety of the project owner’s other contractors/sub-contractors or their employees.

Defense of general surgeon in medical malpractice claim involving delayed operation on a small bowel obstruction. 

Represented addiction treatment center in professional liability claim.

Motion to Dismiss granted in a negligence action where Plaintiff alleged he was injured by a lightning strike.

Summary judgment granted for our client, a Hotel, in a negligence action where Plaintiff alleged that he slipped and fell in the lobby.

Plaintiff alleged that he sustained injury after he slipped and fell in a bathtub.

Plaintiff alleged that she sustained water damage to her basement as a result of construction (storm drainage) work performed in the neighborhood by construction company.

Defense of a nursing home when plaintiff appealed adverse trial court order enforcing arbitration.

Plaintiff alleged negligence against our client after she fell on a gravel sidewalk.

Marigold Overshiner and Earl Overshiner, Individually and as Parents and Guardians of their Minor Daughter, Kaitlyn Overshiner, and Kaitlyn Overshiner, v. Hendricks Regional Health and Ian Johnston, M.D

Indiana Supreme Court denied transfer upholding the decision by the Court of Appeals affirming a directed verdict in favor of defendant hospital and physician following a jury trial alleging blindness to an infant.

Plaintiff alleged negligence against the operator of an exercise facility.

Plaintiff alleged negligence against a warehousing entity for whom he was performing work on a forklift.  Plaintiff was precluded from bringing a claim against the Defendant because it constituted a “joint employer” under Indiana’s Worker’s Compensation Law; thus, Plaintiff’s remedy was limited to worker’s compensation benefits through his staffing agency employer.

Plaintiff alleged negligence against our client on the theory of respondeat superior. 

Marigold Overshiner and Earl Overshiner, Individually and as Parents and Guardians of their Minor Daughter, Kaitlyn Overshiner, and Kaitlyn Overshiner, v. Hendricks Regional Health and Ian Johnston, M.D.

Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed judgment in favor of the defendant hospital and physician following a jury trial alleging blindness to an infant.