Indiana Injury Lawyers Blog

In a personal injury case, most plaintiffs are seeking damages to compensate them for an injury caused by another party. For example, in a simple car crash an injured driver might seek money from the negligent driver to pay for his medical bills, lost wages and pain and suffering. These monetary awards are called compensatory damages as they compensate the injured party for the harm they suffered.

However, with the growing support in the tort reform movement, many jurisdictions have shied away from awarding excess punitive damages and have even placed caps or limits on the amount of punitive damage awards. Like many states, Indiana has adopted its own punitive damage statute that limits both the amount of punitive damages that can be awarded and the amount the plaintiff can receive from the judgment.

Continue reading "Punitive Damage Awards in Indiana" »

A recent Indiana Supreme Court opinion has clarified the role of an injured party's ability to express opinions about their injury and what a defense medical expert can say about the medical treatment received in an Indiana personal injury case. In Sibbing v. Cave, 2010 WL 744928 (Ind.) the plaintiff, Mrs. Cave, brought suit after she was injured in a motor vehicle collision with the defendant, Mr. Sibbing. Mr. Sibbing admitted liability but argued that Mrs. Cave's injuries were not caused by the crash. The trial court entered judgment for the plaintiff, Mrs. Cave. The defendant, Mr. Sibbing, appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by allowing Mrs. Cave to give her own opinion on the cause of her pain. Mr. Sibbing also argued that the trial court erred by excluding his hired medical expert to testify that the plaintiff really didn't need all the medical treatment she received.

The Indiana Supreme Court found that Mrs. Cave's own opinion as to the cause of her pain qualified as permissible testimony by a lay witness pursuant to Indiana Rule of Evidence 701. Upon direct examination, Mrs. Cave was asked what she believed was causing her pain. She replied that her lower back pain was due to a bulging disk. The defendant objected under Indiana Rule of Evidence 803(4) and 702. The Court, however, found that the Mrs. Cave could describe what she believed to be causing her pain, even if it does include aspects of medical diagnosis.

Continue reading "Indiana Supreme Court Opinion Clarifies the Limitations of Lay Witness and Expert Testimony" »

In Indiana auto accident or large truck accident litigation the potential for a traffic ticket to be admitted into evidence at trial is truly a double edged sword. Evidence of a traffic violation issued against the plaintiff, or lack of a ticket to a defendant, which reaches the jury can destroy your client's credibility and ultimately his or her case. Conversely, getting the judge to let in a traffic violation against the defendant in a hotly disputed liability case can tip the scales in a plaintiff's favor. In order to tackle this issue, consider the following two scenarios.

The presentation of your injured plaintiff's case to the jury has gone well. Your client made a good impression, a witness described a horrendous collision, the doctors described the injury with a clearly understandable precision. Then, the defense calls a police officer to the stand and aks him if he gave out any traffic tickets related to the accident, and the answer is "yes, I cited Mr. Plaintiff for failure to yield." Although you know your client pleaded nolo contendre to the ticket, you can feel the wind go out of your sails as you look at the jury and realize the negative impact a traffic citation has made. While you try to save the day on cross, the jury has already made up their mind that police officers don't give out tickets unless a person broke the law. To them a police officer's testimony about a ticket is the gospel, to you it is the kiss of death for your case.

Continue reading "Traffic Tickets: Admissible Evidence in Personal Injury Litigation?" »

Yasmin and YAZ are two varieties of combination type birth control pills (BCP) produced by Bayer Healthcare. Yasmin was approved for sale in the US by the FDA in 2001 while YAZ was approved in 2006. Both YAZ and Yasmin contain 3 mg of drospirenone, a progestin, which is combined with 30 mcg of ethinyl estradiol in Yasmin and 20 mcg of this estrogen in YAZ. The estrogen component of these BCPs has been in common use since the 1970s. Drospirenone is a relatively new fourth generation progestin which has been shown to have an anti mineralocorticoid effect. This effect leads to diuresis, (increased urination) while retaining potassium which can lead to elevated serum potassium levels (hyperkalemia). It is suspected that this progestin is the cause of a notable increase in certain adverse effects which include death, arrhythmias, venous and arterial blood clots, gallbladder disease, pancreatitis, liver or kidney failure, dehydration and hypertension. The serious cardiovascular side effect are markedly increased in those who smoke and with advancing age particularly beyond age 35.