Supreme Court hears arguments in malpractice case
Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
Indiana Supreme Court justices heard oral arguments for multiple cases Tuesday, weighing the stakes in an allegation of medical malpractice at a state prison.
The case is among the 10 being heard and weighed by the high court this month. It’s not yet clear when opinions will be issued in the case.
In Edward Zaragoza v. Wexford of Indiana LLC; Samuel J. Byrd, M.D.; Naveen Rajoli, M.D.; Jackie L. West-Denning, M.D. , Indiana Supreme Court justices heard arguments in a case involving an inmate who alleged medical malpractice at the Department of Correction facility where he was incarcerated.
Edward Zaragoza filed a complaint in 2019 against Wexford of Indiana LLC, which provided medical care at Wabash Valley Correctional Facility in Terre Haute, where he is being held. He claimed the doctors employed by Wexford denied him treatment in violation of his Eighth Amendment constitutional rights.
Zaragoza, who remains incarcerated, was diagnosed with hypothyroidism, a chronic medical condition, and must take medication daily.
But in court documents, Zaragoza claims he suffers multiple adverse side effects from the prescribed medication — Synthroid — including headaches, muscle pains, neck tightness, cognitive problems, and blurred vision. He said Wexford’s doctors repeatedly denied alternative medications.
One of the defendants, a doctor, claimed that alternative medication was requested, but that after a second opinion from the regional clinical pharmacist, the request was denied, in part because the alternative medication can make Zaragoza’s condition more difficult to manage.
Zaragoza raises a lone issue in his legal challenge: whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to Wexford.
In 2021, the Court of Appeals of Indiana affirmed the Marion Superior Court’s ruling granting summary judgment to Wexford.
But Brian Karle, an attorney for Zaragoza, emphasized to Indiana Supreme Court justices Thursday morning that the state’s summary judgment standard “imposes a heavy factual burden” on Wexford.
He noted that Wexford must affirmatively disprove an element of his client’s claim, and only then does the burden shift to Zaragoza “to create a material issue of fact on that particular element.”
In this case, Wexford only sought to disprove a single element of the Eighth Amendment claim — deliberate indifference — and only sought to disprove a single element of the medical malpractice claim — breach of the standard of care — Karle said.
“In this case, the trial court and the court of appeals deviated from Indiana’s well established summary judgment standard and improperly raised the evidentiary bar for expert affidavits,” Karle continued. He said the justices should reverse the trial court’s summary judgment decision and allow that Zaragoza “may have his day in court.”
Rachel Johnson, representing Wexford, said physicians at the prison “all laid out exactly why the treatment was provided” to Zaragoza, and that he “was treated properly.”
In earlier court proceedings, Zaragoza was required to submit evidence showing the existence of a genuine issue of material fact for trial. Zaragoza provided testimony from Dr. Richard Schultheis, a family medicine specialist in Indianapolis, in opposition to Wexford’s motion for summary judgment.
Dr. Schultheis opined in his affidavit, among other things, that Wexford’s doctors had departed from the standard of care in their treatment of Zaragoza.
But Johnson said Dr. Schultheis is not qualified to weigh-in on Zaragoza’s care, given that he only reviewed some of Zaragoza’s medical files and never examined the inmate himself.
“We don’t believe Dr. Schultheis has provided enough information to meet a burden to show he’s an expert, and so we don’t believe the plaintiff has been able to show that there is enough to get over that hurdle to defeat the defendants’ arguments that they made on summary judgment,” Johnson said.
It’s not up to the justices to decide. Rush the panel “will be discussing the case and issuing an opinion in due course.”