mitigation of damages defense in Indiana

2004See, e.g., Kristoff v. (Glasson, 778 N.E.2d 465, 474 (Ind.Ct.App.2002) (holding that evidence that plaintiff did not regularly perform her prescribed exercises was insufficient to support a mitigation of damages claim in the absence of physician testimony that she failed to mitigate her damages).

2004See, eg., Mroz v. Harrison, 815 N.E.2d 551, 557 (Ind.Ct.App., 2004) (holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by determining that the evidence did not support the giving of a mitigation of damages instruction where there was no expert medical testimony that the plaintiff's failure to cooperate with prescribed treatment, exaggeration of symptoms, and failure to complete physical therapy aggravated or increased his injuries); Wilkinson v. Swafford, 811 N.E.2d 374, 384 (Ind.Ct.App.2004) (holding that the trial court abused its discretion by instructing the jury on mitigation of d

2013The court observed: Rejecting the defendant’s argument that the mitigation of damages defense was expressly included within the statutory definition of “fault,” the court [in Deible v. Poole, 691 N.E.2d 1313, 1316 (Ind.Ct.

2003See Deible, 691 N.E.2d at 1316 (holding mitigation of damages is defense to amount of damages plaintiff is entitled to recover after defendant is found to have caused tort).

2006Wilkinson v. Swafford, 811 N.E.2d 374, 384 (Ind.Ct.App.2004) (testimony elicited on cross-examination of plaintiff's treating physicians that the plaintiff failed to follow up in a timely manner, decided not to have a recommended surgery, decided not to have a nerve root block, and was uncooperative during a diagnostic exam, was insufficient to support a failure to mitigate damages instruction because the defendant "was required to produce some medical testimony that Wilkinson's actions, or inactions, aggravated or increased her injuries."); Mrog v. Harrison, 815 N.E.2d 551, 557 (Ind.Ct.App.20

2004See, eg., Mroz v. Harrison, 815 N.E.2d 551, 557 (Ind.Ct.App., 2004) (holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by determining that the evidence did not support the giving of a mitigation of damages instruction where there was no expert medical testimony that the plaintiff's failure to cooperate with prescribed treatment, exaggeration of symptoms, and failure to complete physical therapy aggravated or increased his injuries); Wilkinson v. Swafford, 811 N.E.2d 374, 384 (Ind.Ct.App.2004) (holding that the trial court abused its discretion by instructing the jury on mitigation of d

2006Wilkinson v. Swafford, 811 N.E.2d 374, 384 (Ind.Ct.App.2004) (testimony elicited on cross-examination of plaintiff's treating physicians that the plaintiff failed to follow up in a timely manner, decided not to have a recommended surgery, decided not to have a nerve root block, and was uncooperative during a diagnostic exam, was insufficient to support a failure to mitigate damages instruction because the defendant "was required to produce some medical testimony that Wilkinson's actions, or inactions, aggravated or increased her injuries."); Mrog v. Harrison, 815 N.E.2d 551, 557 (Ind.Ct.App.20

2004See, eg., Mroz v. Harrison, 815 N.E.2d 551, 557 (Ind.Ct.App., 2004) (holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by determining that the evidence did not support the giving of a mitigation of damages instruction where there was no expert medical testimony that the plaintiff's failure to cooperate with prescribed treatment, exaggeration of symptoms, and failure to complete physical therapy aggravated or increased his injuries); Wilkinson v. Swafford, 811 N.E.2d 374, 384 (Ind.Ct.App.2004) (holding that the trial court abused its discretion by instructing the jury on mitigation of d

2006See, eg., Sikora v. Fromm, 782 N.E.2d 355, 362 (Ind.Ct.App.2002), trans. denied (in a negligence action arising out of a car accident, affirming the trial court's refusal to instruct on failure to mitigate damages because the treating chiropractor's testimony that the plaintiff missed and rescheduled several appointments was insufficient to support "the inference that Fromm's [the plaintiff's] actions, or inactions, aggravated or increased his injuries."); Kristoff v. Glasson, 718 N.E.2d 465 , 474-75 (Ind.Ct.App.2002) (where the defendant argued that the plaintiff's continuing headaches were t

2004Similarly, in Sikora, 782 N.E.2d at 362 , we addressed a defendant's claim that he had presented sufficient evidence to support the giving of a mitigation of damages instruction at trial. 6 But the only medical testimony the defendant referenced in support of the giving of the instruction was a treating chiropractor's statements that it is important for patients to follow up with treatment and that the plaintiff had rescheduled and missed several appointments.

1992Yeager & Sullivan, 162 Ind. App. at 25 , 317 N.E.2d at 798 .

1992Yeager & Sullivan, 162 Ind. App. at 25 , 317 N.E.2d at 798 .

2012In sum, the Gellers contend that “enforcement of a savings clause in a lease subverts the doctrine of mitigation of damages.” See Nylen v. Park Doral Apartments, 535 N.E.2d 178, 183 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989), trans. denied.

2012In sum, the Gellers contend that “enforcement of a savings clause in a lease subverts the doctrine of mitigation of damages.” See Nylen v. Park Doral Apartments, 535 N.E.2d 178, 183 (Ind.Ct.App. 1989), trans. denied.

2009Id.

2009See, e.g., id.