medical negligence claim in Indiana

10 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1995–2015 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Indiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (9)

Case	Followed	Cited
Schaffer v. Robertsgreen indctapp · 1995 · cited in 9 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 1999–2015 2 sentences 2015Briggs v. Finley, 631 N.E.2d 959, 963 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994). [17] “In a medical negligence claim, the plaintiff must prove by expert testimony not only that the defendant was negligent, but also that the defendant’s negligence proximately caused the plaintiff’s injury.” Clarian Health Partners, Inc. v. Wagler, 925 N.E.2d 388, 392 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (emphasis added) (citing Schaffer v. Roberts, 650 N.E.2d 341, 342 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995)). 9 [18] Lacking the stricken Vollmer affidavit, Vaughn has no expert testimony supporting her negligence claim. 2015Briggs v. Finley, 631 N.E.2d 959, 963 (Ind.Ct.App.1994) (citations omitted). [9] “In a medical negligence claim, the plaintiff must prove by expert testimony not only that the defendant was negligent, but also that the defendant’s negligence proximately caused the plaintiffs injury.” Clarian Health Partners, Inc. v. Wagler, 925 N.E.2d 388, 392 (Ind.Ct.App.2010) (citing Schaffer v. Roberts, 650 N.E.2d 341, 342 (Ind.Ct.App.1995)).	9	9
Daub v. Daubgreen indctapp · 1994 · cited in 4 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2000–2010 2 sentences 2010Singh, 889 N.E.2d at 357 . "'When the issue of cause is not within the understanding of a lay person, testimony of an expert witness on the issue is necessary'" Id. (quoting Daub v. Daub, 629 N.E.2d 873, 878 (Ind.Ct.App.1994), trans. denied) (citing Topp v. Leffers, 838 N.E.2d 1027, 1033 (Ind.Ct.App.2005), trans. denied, Dughaish v. Cobb, 729 N.E.2d 159, 164 (Ind.Ct.App.2000), reh'g denied, trans. denied; Schaffer v. Roberts, 650 N.E.2d 341, 342 (Ind.Ct.App.1995) ("It is well settled that in a medical negligence claim, the plaintiff must prove by expert testimony not only that the defendant wa 2008“When the issue of cause is not within the understanding of a lay person, testimony of an expert witness on the issue is necessary.” Daub v. Daub, 629 N.E.2d 873, 878 (Ind.Ct.App.1994), trans. denied; see also Topp v. Leffers, 838 N.E.2d 1027, 1033 (Ind.Ct.App.2005), trans. denied; Dughaish v. Cobb, 729 N.E.2d 159, 164 (Ind.Ct.App.2000), trans. denied; Schaffer v. Roberts, 650 N.E.2d 341, 342 (Ind.Ct.App.1995) (“It is well settled that in a medical negligence claim, the plaintiff must prove by-expert testimony not only that the defendant was negligent, but also that the defendant’s negligence	4	4
Briggs v. Finleygreen indctapp · 1994 · cited in 2 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015 2 sentences 2015Briggs v. Finley, 631 N.E.2d 959, 963 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994). [17] “In a medical negligence claim, the plaintiff must prove by expert testimony not only that the defendant was negligent, but also that the defendant’s negligence proximately caused the plaintiff’s injury.” Clarian Health Partners, Inc. v. Wagler, 925 N.E.2d 388, 392 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (emphasis added) (citing Schaffer v. Roberts, 650 N.E.2d 341, 342 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995)). 9 [18] Lacking the stricken Vollmer affidavit, Vaughn has no expert testimony supporting her negligence claim. 2015Briggs v. Finley, 631 N.E.2d 959, 963 (Ind.Ct.App.1994) (citations omitted). [9] “In a medical negligence claim, the plaintiff must prove by expert testimony not only that the defendant was negligent, but also that the defendant’s negligence proximately caused the plaintiffs injury.” Clarian Health Partners, Inc. v. Wagler, 925 N.E.2d 388, 392 (Ind.Ct.App.2010) (citing Schaffer v. Roberts, 650 N.E.2d 341, 342 (Ind.Ct.App.1995)).	2	2
Clarian Health Partners, Inc. v. Waglergreen indctapp · 2010 · cited in 2 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015 2 sentences 2015Briggs v. Finley, 631 N.E.2d 959, 963 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994). [17] “In a medical negligence claim, the plaintiff must prove by expert testimony not only that the defendant was negligent, but also that the defendant’s negligence proximately caused the plaintiff’s injury.” Clarian Health Partners, Inc. v. Wagler, 925 N.E.2d 388, 392 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (emphasis added) (citing Schaffer v. Roberts, 650 N.E.2d 341, 342 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995)). 9 [18] Lacking the stricken Vollmer affidavit, Vaughn has no expert testimony supporting her negligence claim. 2015Briggs v. Finley, 631 N.E.2d 959, 963 (Ind.Ct.App.1994) (citations omitted). [9] “In a medical negligence claim, the plaintiff must prove by expert testimony not only that the defendant was negligent, but also that the defendant’s negligence proximately caused the plaintiffs injury.” Clarian Health Partners, Inc. v. Wagler, 925 N.E.2d 388, 392 (Ind.Ct.App.2010) (citing Schaffer v. Roberts, 650 N.E.2d 341, 342 (Ind.Ct.App.1995)).	2	2
Dughaish Ex Rel. Dughaish v. Cobbgreen indctapp · 2000 · cited in 2 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2008–2010 2 sentences 2010Singh, 889 N.E.2d at 357 . "'When the issue of cause is not within the understanding of a lay person, testimony of an expert witness on the issue is necessary'" Id. (quoting Daub v. Daub, 629 N.E.2d 873, 878 (Ind.Ct.App.1994), trans. denied) (citing Topp v. Leffers, 838 N.E.2d 1027, 1033 (Ind.Ct.App.2005), trans. denied, Dughaish v. Cobb, 729 N.E.2d 159, 164 (Ind.Ct.App.2000), reh'g denied, trans. denied; Schaffer v. Roberts, 650 N.E.2d 341, 342 (Ind.Ct.App.1995) ("It is well settled that in a medical negligence claim, the plaintiff must prove by expert testimony not only that the defendant wa 2008“When the issue of cause is not within the understanding of a lay person, testimony of an expert witness on the issue is necessary.” Daub v. Daub, 629 N.E.2d 873, 878 (Ind.Ct.App.1994), trans. denied; see also Topp v. Leffers, 838 N.E.2d 1027, 1033 (Ind.Ct.App.2005), trans. denied; Dughaish v. Cobb, 729 N.E.2d 159, 164 (Ind.Ct.App.2000), trans. denied; Schaffer v. Roberts, 650 N.E.2d 341, 342 (Ind.Ct.App.1995) (“It is well settled that in a medical negligence claim, the plaintiff must prove by-expert testimony not only that the defendant was negligent, but also that the defendant’s negligence	2	2
Topp v. Leffersgreen indctapp · 2005 · cited in 2 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2008–2010 2 sentences 2010Singh, 889 N.E.2d at 357 . "'When the issue of cause is not within the understanding of a lay person, testimony of an expert witness on the issue is necessary'" Id. (quoting Daub v. Daub, 629 N.E.2d 873, 878 (Ind.Ct.App.1994), trans. denied) (citing Topp v. Leffers, 838 N.E.2d 1027, 1033 (Ind.Ct.App.2005), trans. denied, Dughaish v. Cobb, 729 N.E.2d 159, 164 (Ind.Ct.App.2000), reh'g denied, trans. denied; Schaffer v. Roberts, 650 N.E.2d 341, 342 (Ind.Ct.App.1995) ("It is well settled that in a medical negligence claim, the plaintiff must prove by expert testimony not only that the defendant wa 2008“When the issue of cause is not within the understanding of a lay person, testimony of an expert witness on the issue is necessary.” Daub v. Daub, 629 N.E.2d 873, 878 (Ind.Ct.App.1994), trans. denied; see also Topp v. Leffers, 838 N.E.2d 1027, 1033 (Ind.Ct.App.2005), trans. denied; Dughaish v. Cobb, 729 N.E.2d 159, 164 (Ind.Ct.App.2000), trans. denied; Schaffer v. Roberts, 650 N.E.2d 341, 342 (Ind.Ct.App.1995) (“It is well settled that in a medical negligence claim, the plaintiff must prove by-expert testimony not only that the defendant was negligent, but also that the defendant’s negligence	2	2
Cahoon v. Cummingsgreen indctapp · 1999 · cited in 2 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000 2 sentences 2000Bowman, 713 N.E.2d at 917 ; Daub v. Daub, 629 N.E.2d 873, 878 (Ind.Ct.App.1994); see also Cahoon v. Cummings, 715 N.E.2d 1, 17 (Ind.Ct.App.1999) (declaring "it is well settled that in a medical negligence claim, the plaintiff must prove by expert testimony not only that the defendant was negligent, but also that the defendant’s negligence proximately caused the plaintiff's injury.”), reh’g. denied, (quoting Schaffer v. Roberts, 650 N.E.2d 341, 342 (Ind.Ct.App.1995)). 2000Bowman, 713 N.E.2d at 917 ; Daub v. Daub, 629 N.E.2d 873, 878 (Ind.Ct.App.1994); see also Cahoon v. Cummings, 715 N.E.2d 1, 17 (Ind.Ct.App. 1999) (declaring "it is well settled that in a medical negligence claim, the plaintiff must prove by expert testimony not only that the defendant was negligent, but also that the defendant's negligence proximately caused the plaintiff's injury."), reh'g. denied, (quoting Schaffer v. Roberts, 650 N.E.2d 341, 342 (Ind. Ct.App. 1995)).	2	2
Bowman v. Beghingreen indctapp · 1999 · cited in 2 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000 2 sentences 2000Bowman, 713 N.E.2d at 917 ; Daub v. Daub, 629 N.E.2d 873, 878 (Ind.Ct.App.1994); see also Cahoon v. Cummings, 715 N.E.2d 1, 17 (Ind.Ct.App.1999) (declaring "it is well settled that in a medical negligence claim, the plaintiff must prove by expert testimony not only that the defendant was negligent, but also that the defendant’s negligence proximately caused the plaintiff's injury.”), reh’g. denied, (quoting Schaffer v. Roberts, 650 N.E.2d 341, 342 (Ind.Ct.App.1995)). 2000Bowman, 713 N.E.2d at 917 ; Daub v. Daub, 629 N.E.2d 873, 878 (Ind.Ct.App.1994); see also Cahoon v. Cummings, 715 N.E.2d 1, 17 (Ind.Ct.App. 1999) (declaring "it is well settled that in a medical negligence claim, the plaintiff must prove by expert testimony not only that the defendant was negligent, but also that the defendant's negligence proximately caused the plaintiff's injury."), reh'g. denied, (quoting Schaffer v. Roberts, 650 N.E.2d 341, 342 (Ind. Ct.App. 1995)).	1	2
Ziobron v. Squiresgreen indctapp · 2008 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011 1 sentence 2011“Because of the complexity of medical diagnosis and treatment, substantive law requires expert opinion as to the existence and scope of the standard of care which is imposed upon medical specialists and as to whether particular acts or omissions measure up to the standard of care.” Ziobron v. Squires, 907 N.E.2d 118, 122-23 (Ind.Ct.App.2008) (citation and quotation omitted).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (3)

Case	Cited	Years
Singh v. Lyday green indctapp · 2008 2 sentences 2010Singh, 889 N.E.2d at 357 . "'When the issue of cause is not within the understanding of a lay person, testimony of an expert witness on the issue is necessary'" Id. (quoting Daub v. Daub, 629 N.E.2d 873, 878 (Ind.Ct.App.1994), trans. denied) (citing Topp v. Leffers, 838 N.E.2d 1027, 1033 (Ind.Ct.App.2005), trans. denied, Dughaish v. Cobb, 729 N.E.2d 159, 164 (Ind.Ct.App.2000), reh'g denied, trans. denied; Schaffer v. Roberts, 650 N.E.2d 341, 342 (Ind.Ct.App.1995) ("It is well settled that in a medical negligence claim, the plaintiff must prove by expert testimony not only that the defendant wa 2010Singh, 889 N.E.2d at 357 . "'When the issue of cause is not within the understanding of a lay person, testimony of an expert witness on the issue is necessary'" Id. (quoting Daub v. Daub, 629 N.E.2d 873, 878 (Ind.Ct.App.1994), trans. denied) (citing Topp v. Leffers, 838 N.E.2d 1027, 1033 (Ind.Ct.App.2005), trans. denied, Dughaish v. Cobb, 729 N.E.2d 159, 164 (Ind.Ct.App.2000), reh'g denied, trans. denied; Schaffer v. Roberts, 650 N.E.2d 341, 342 (Ind.Ct.App.1995) ("It is well settled that in a medical negligence claim, the plaintiff must prove by expert testimony not only that the defendant wa	1	2010–2010
Bader v. Johnson green ind · 2000 1 sentence 2010As the Indiana Supreme Court stated in Bader, "It has been held that expert opinion is usually required to establish a causal connection between the acts or omissions of the physician and the injury to the patient." 732 N.E.2d at 1218 n. 6 (citing Indiana Court of Appeals cases); see also W.E.	1	2010–2010
Weaver v. Robinson green indctapp · 1993 1 sentence 1995Weaver v. Robinson (1993), Ind. App., 627 N.E.2d 442, 445 .	1	1995–1995

Statutes the citing opinions construe

IN § Ind. Code § 34-18-10-22 (3) IN § Ind. Code § 34-18-10-23 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

FL 55 (1993–2026) IL 39 (1980–2025) TX 36 (1993–2023) OH 30 (1994–2026) WA 26 (1999–2025) MD 14 (2001–2025) IN 10 (1995–2015) NC 9 (2010–2020) CA 9 (1993–2026) AZ 8 (1985–2024) NJ 7 (1999–2026) PA 7 (1999–2025) OR 6 (1989–2017) NM 6 (2001–2021) MS 6 (2008–2019) WI 4 (2009–2024) CT 3 (2011–2024) DE 3 (2016–2025) CO 3 (2009–2024) KY 3 (2023–2023) WV 3 (1996–2022) GA 3 (2016–2022) NH 2 (2005–2009) HI 2 (2020–2024) IA 2 (2025–2026)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check