Jacqueline Wisner, M.D. and The South Bend Clinic, L.L.P. v. Archie L. Laney

Summary

The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the denial of defendants’ motion for a new trial following a $1.75 million medical-malpractice jury verdict, reduced by statute to $1.25 million. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in addressing alleged attorney misconduct, closing-argument issues, a claimed witness-separation violation, or voir dire questioning. The court also affirmed the denial of prejudgment interest under Indiana’s Tort Prejudgment Interest Statute.

Holdings

1. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants' motion to correct error and request for a new trial because defendants failed to show that counsel's misconduct prevented them from fully and fairly presenting their case or caused substantial prejudice.
2. The issue was waived because defendants did not object to the challenged closing statements, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial.
3. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that no improper violation of the separation-of-witnesses order occurred.
4. The claim was waived, and in any event the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a mistrial because the insurance-company question was asked in good faith and no bad-faith prejudice was shown.
5. A written settlement offer may be made before or after a lawsuit is filed, but it must be made no later than one year after the claim is filed in court, unless an extended period is authorized for good cause. Laney's 2005 letter was untimely because it was sent more than one year after her 2002 complaint.
6. Prejudgment interest under Indiana's Tort Prejudgment Interest Statute is discretionary, not mandatory, even when the statutory prerequisites are satisfied.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the cumulative effect of plaintiff's counsel's alleged unprofessional conduct, including violations of trial-court rulings, warranted a new trial or mistrial under Trial Rules 59(J) and 60(B)(3).
2. Whether plaintiff's counsel's closing argument concerning missing medical records warranted a new trial.
3. Whether an alleged violation of the separation-of-witnesses order required a new trial.
4. Whether questions during voir dire concerning insurance and the healthcare industry warranted a new trial.
5. Whether Laney's settlement letter satisfied the timing and content requirements of Indiana's Tort Prejudgment Interest Statute.
6. Whether prejudgment interest is mandatory when the statutory prerequisites are satisfied.

Disposition

affirmed