ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT
Thomas C. Doehrman
Courtney E. McGovern
Indianapolis, Indiana
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Todd J. Kaiser
Peter H. Pogue
Indianapolis, Indiana
__________________________________________________________________
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA
__________________________________________________________________
JAMES H. SMITH, )
)
Appellant (Plaintiff Below), ) Indiana Supreme Court
) Cause No. 49S04-0009-CV-512
v. )
) Indiana Court of Appeals
WILBERT WASHINGTON, M.D. ) Cause No. 49A04-9808-CV-398
)
Appellee (Defendant Below). )
__________________________________________________________________
APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable Kenneth H. Johnson, Judge
Cause No. 49D02-9503-CT-0459
__________________________________________________________________
ON PETITION TO TRANSFER
__________________________________________________________________
September 1, 2000
Boehm, Justice.
This appeal presents the issue of the measure of damages for an act
of negligence that increased the risk of an injury that was at least
equally likely to occur in the absence of negligence. We grant transfer
and hold, as we did in Cahoon v. Cummings, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. 2000), that
damages under these circumstances are to be in proportion to the increased
risk attributable to the defendant’s negligence. We affirm the trial
court.
Factual and Procedural Background
James Smith was involved in a car accident in May of 1990, and soon
sought the care of an ophthalmologist for his right eye, which was red,
itchy, runny, and painful. Dr. Wilbert Washington was recommended to Smith
by his family physician. Washington treated Smith from July 10, 1990,
until at least June 13, 1992. Washington diagnosed Smith as suffering from
glaucoma. Washington prescribed eye drops and performed two laser
surgeries in an effort to reduce the intraocular pressure to Smith’s optic
nerve. He also prescribed Motrin to relieve Smith’s pain. By the end of
this treatment, however, Smith “had no light perception in his right eye
and he would never regain any useful vision in that eye.”
Smith subsequently changed jobs and switched health insurance plans.
Through his new primary physician he was referred to another
ophthalmologist, who noted that Smith was still suffering from increased
intraocular pressure. Not long after consulting with this ophthalmologist,
Smith agreed to the removal of his right eye and was fitted with a
prosthetic eye.
Pursuant to the Medical Malpractice Act, Smith submitted a proposed
complaint on October 14, 1993. The Medical Review Panel issued an opinion
on March 20, 1995, unanimously concluding that Washington had breached the
standard of care in treating Smith, but that it could not be determined
whether Washington’s breach was or was a not a factor in Smith’s injuries.
Smith subsequently filed suit in Marion Superior Court, alleging that
Washington had breached the standard of care, and that “as a direct and
proximate result,” Smith had permanently lost vision in his right eye,
suffered undue pain and discomfort, disfigurement, and lost earnings, and
had incurred and would continue to incur medical expenses related to
treatment of the eye.
Washington belatedly asserted his right to a jury trial, which the
trial court denied. A bench trial was held on October 15 and 16, 1997,
December 1, 1997, and April 13, 1998. At trial, Dr. Robert Boeglin, a
Panel member, testified that Washington had breached the standard of care
by failing (1) to maintain adequate record-keeping; (2) to establish, or
take appropriate steps toward establishing, a specific diagnosis of Smith’s
type of glaucoma; (3) to monitor the condition of Smith’s optic nerve with
appropriate testing; (4) to gain control of Smith’s glaucoma within a
reasonable time frame, or, alternatively, refer Smith to another
ophthalmologist; and (5) either to document advising Smith to have further
surgery or to advise Smith of the risks and benefits of surgery.
Washington argued that he had not breached the standard of care and that he
had caused no injuries to Smith. He also maintained that Smith was
contributorily negligent in failing to take the recommended medications and
refusing to undergo further surgery. Finally, he contended that his last
contact with Smith was September 28, 1991, so Smith’s October 29, 1993
proposed complaint was untimely.
The trial court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law on July
2, 1998, substantially adopting the testimony of Boeglin and concluding
that Washington’s negligence was a substantial factor in Mr. Smith’s
damages. The trial court also determined that Smith was not contributorily
negligent, and that his complaint was timely. The trial court then
determined that Smith’s damages were $364,037.84, but, drawing on another
doctor’s testimony, reduced this figure by fifty percent, which was found
to be the probability that Smith would have lost his vision even in the
absence of Washington’s malpractice.
Both Smith and Washington appealed. Smith contested the amount of the
damages award, arguing that because the trial court had determined that he
had a fifty percent chance of maintaining useful vision and avoiding
removal, he had proved proximate causation and should have been awarded
full damages. Washington argued that the trial court had erred in finding
Smith’s claim timely and determining that Smith was not contributorily
negligent. Washington also appealed the trial court’s denial of his
request for a jury trial. The Court of Appeals, citing Cahoon v. Cummings,
715 N.E.2d 1 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999), reversed the trial court on the issue of
damages and remanded with instructions to award damages in the full amount
of $364,037.84. See Smith v. Washington, 716 N.E.2d 607, 613-14 (Ind. Ct.
App. 1999).
On petition to transfer to this Court, Washington again raises the
issues of contributory negligence, his denial of a jury trial, and the
award of damages. Smith counters that, even if this Court determines that
his damages award must be reduced to reflect the percentage fault of
Washington in bringing about his injuries, past pain and suffering should
be excepted from this reduction.
Standard of Review
Where, as here, a trial court has made special findings pursuant to a
party’s request under Indiana Trial Rule 52(A), the reviewing court may
affirm the judgment on any legal theory supported by the findings.
Mitchell v. Mitchell, 695 N.E.2d 920, 923-24 (Ind. 1998). “[T]he court on
appeal shall not set aside the findings or judgment unless clearly
erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial
court to judge the credibility of the witnesses.” T.R. 52(A). When the
specific issue on review relates to the award of damages, a damage award
should not be reversed if within the scope of the evidence before the trial
court. Dunn v. Cadiente, 516 N.E.2d 52, 54 (Ind. 1987).
Damages
Smith contends that he should be awarded damages in the amount of the
full value of the loss of his eye. He argues that the trial court erred in
applying the causation standard of Section 323 of the Restatement of Torts,
which this Court endorsed in Mayhue v. Sparkman, 653 N.E.2d 1384, 1388-89
(Ind. 1995). In Mayhue, the plaintiff was unable to prove that the
physician’s negligence proximately caused his wife’s death because she had
less than a fifty percent chance of survival before the negligent
treatment. See 653 N.E.2d at 1386. Nevertheless, because the physician’s
negligence had precluded any chance of recovery from a fatal cancer,
Section 323 provides for recovery for the increased risk of harm
attributable to the defendant’s conduct. See id. at 1388-89.
The trial court determined that Smith had a fifty percent chance of
retaining vision in his right eye before the negligent acts of Washington.
Based on this fact- finding, Smith argues that the trial court should have
awarded full damages because it essentially determined that Washington’s
actions had proximately caused Smith’s injuries. It is not apparent that
application of Section 323 turns on the degree of initial risk that is
aggravated. However, like the Court of Appeals, we need not resolve this
issue. The Court of Appeals ruled that Smith could not contend on appeal
that Section 323 was inapplicable when he had argued in the trial court for
its application. We agree that Section 323 governs this case.
The trial court found that the defendant’s negligence increased the
risk of incurring an already likely injury from 50% to 100%. In Cahoon, we
held that once causation is established under Mayhue, the plaintiff is to
receive the proportion of damages traceable to the defendant’s negligent
act or omission. Specifically, we adopted the standard for measuring
damages under Section 323 of the Restatement of Torts as set forth in
McKellips v. Saint Francis Hospital, Inc., 741 P.2d 467 (Okla. 1987). In
McKellips, the court held that statistical evidence should be admitted to
determine the “lost chance” by subtracting the decedent’s postnegligence
chance of survival from decedent’s prenegligence chance of survival. Id.
at 476-77. Then, “[t]he amount of damages recoverable is equal to the
percent of chance lost multiplied by the total amount of damages which are
ordinarily allowed in a wrongful death action.” Id.
Here, after determining that defendant was liable, the trial court
found that Washington’s negligence reduced Smith’s chance of retaining
vision in his right eye by fifty percent. The trial court meticulously
outlined Smith’s damages, but awarded fifty percent of the total damages as
the amount traceable to Washington’s conduct. In so doing, the trial court
relied on the formula set out in McKellips. Judge Johnson thus predicted
with precision the measure of damages this Court ultimately adopted in
Cahoon.
Finally, Smith argues that his past pain and suffering damages, which
the trial court calculated at $125,000, should be awarded in full. Smith
argues that because the trial court entered the factual finding that Smith
endured pain and suffering throughout Washington’s treatment, the trial
court erred in reducing this element of his damages award. However, the
trial court did not find that this pain and suffering would have been
wholly avoided if Smith had received proper treatment. Rather, the
evidence permitted the inference that only a portion of Smith’s past pain
and suffering was due to Washington’s negligence. Thus, the trial court
was free to apply proportionate causation to damages on past pain and
suffering. The trial court’s award of damages is affirmed.
Conclusion
We affirm the trial court and its award of damages in the amount of
$182,018.92. We summarily affirm the Court of Appeals with respect to the
issues of contributory negligence, the denial of a jury trial to
Washington, and the statute of limitations.
SHEPARD, C.J., and DICKSON, SULLIVAN and RUCKER, JJ., concur.