Singh v. Lyday, No. 84A05-0709-CV-538.
| Decision Date | 27 June 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 84A05-0709-CV-538. |
| Citation | 889 N.E.2d 342 |
| Parties | Surjit SINGH, M.D., Appellant-Defendant, v. Diane LYDAY, Betsy Calderhead, and Cara Nichols, Appellees-Plaintiffs. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
David C. Jensen, Alyssa Stamatakos, Eichhorn & Eichhorn, LLP, Hammond, IN, Attorneys for Appellant.
Eric A. Frey, Frey Law Firm, John P. Nichols, Anderson & Nichols, Terre Haute, IN, Attorneys for Appellees.
Surjit Singh, M.D., appeals from the trial court's grant of a Motion to Correct Error filed by the plaintiffs below, Diane Lyday, Betsy Calderhead, and Cara Nichols (referred to collectively as the "Patients"). In granting this motion, the trial court vacated the jury's verdict in favor of Singh on the Patients' claims of malpractice, gross negligence, and battery, and ordered a new trial. On appeal, Singh argues that the trial court improperly granted this motion and improperly denied his motion for a judgment on the evidence. Concluding the trial court abused its discretion in ordering a new trial and that the trial court improperly denied Singh's motion for judgment on the evidence on the Patients' claims of malpractice and gross negligence, we reverse and remand with instructions that the trial court enter judgment on the evidence in favor of Singh on the malpractice and gross negligence claims and reinstate the jury's verdict on the battery charge.
Singh is a psychiatrist with offices in Terre Haute, Indiana. Lyday saw Singh from February 2000 to March 2001 for issues including flashbacks to traumatic childhood experiences and panic attacks triggered upon leaving her home. According to Lyday, after seeing Singh for several months, Singh touched her inappropriately during an office visit. Specifically, Lyday claims that Singh instructed her to lift up her shirt so that he could listen to her heart, rubbed her sides, touched her breasts, and had Lyday straddle his leg. After this alleged event, Lyday saw Singh up to fifteen more times. Singh ended his professional relationship with Lyday in March 2001. Singh stated that he had been reducing the amount of drugs he was prescribing for Lyday and that she was not happy with this situation. Singh learned that she had been seeking prescriptions from other doctors, and indicated that Lyday was using abusive language towards his staff, and demanding to be seen and to receive prescriptions for larger doses of medication. Eventually, it got to the point that his staff "[could not] handle her anymore," and he told her that she "need[ed] to seek help somewhere else." Transcript at 563.
Nichols was a patient of Singh's from September 1998 to April 2000. Nichols saw Singh for treatment for anxiety, depression, and panic attacks. During her treatment, Singh prescribed a variety of medications, but none seemed to result in significant improvement. Nichols testified that at some point after August 1999, Singh touched her inappropriately. Specifically, she claimed that Singh frequently asked her to remove her shirt, bra, and pants in order to listen to her heart and check for swelling in her legs. Nichols's last meeting with Singh occurred on April 12, 2000, after which Nichols told Singh that she could no longer afford his services, and would be seeking less expensive care.
Calderhead saw Singh in 1995 or 1996 to seek treatment for anxiety and depression stemming from the death of her child. Calderhead returned to Singh in April 1999 with more substantial symptoms of anxiety and depression. Singh diagnosed her with depression and prescribed anti-depressants. According to Calderhead, Singh first engaged in inappropriate conduct on January 6, 2000, when he asked her to remove her shirt and pants, rubbed his hands along her legs and underneath her bra and underpants, and also rubbed his erect penis against her. She claims that two of her sons, one who was seven or eight years old, and another who was eighteen months old, were in the room during this conduct. She claims that Singh engaged in similar conduct during subsequent visits. At some point, Singh received an anonymous call indicating that Calderhead had been selling drugs and taking money from mentally retarded patients. Singh called a local pharmacy and learned that Calderhead was receiving prescriptions for pain medication and anti-depressants from both him and her family physician. Singh called Calderhead to confront her with this allegation, and Calderhead became angry and hung up on him. Singh did not see Calderhead following this conversation.
On November 2, 2001, the Patients filed a proposed complaint with the Indiana Department of Insurance. The Department's Medical Review Panel (the "Review Panel") issued an opinion on April 19, 2004, indicating that there was "a material issue of fact, not requiring expert opinion, bearing on liability for consideration by the court or jury." Plaintiff's Ex. 1. On June 29, 2004, the Patients filed a complaint, "individually and on behalf of all persons who are similarly situated," in the trial court alleging that Singh failed to meet the applicable standard of care, "in that [he] engaged in transference activity or phenomenon by using his position as a therapist to have the plaintiffs disrobe, and engage in sexual activity by allowing him to touch their breasts and other parts of their anatomy." Appellant's Appendix at 19. The Patients sought damages for "emotional distress, mental stress, emotional trauma, and inability to live a normal life." Id. at 21.
On January 13, 2005, Tamara Betz filed with the Review Panel a "Proposed Complaint," containing an allegation identical to that contained in the Patients' complaint.1 On March 3, 2006, the trial court issued an order granting Singh's motion for summary judgment in regard to Betz, finding that her complaint was barred by the statute of limitations.
On June 4, 2007, Singh filed a motion in limine, seeking an instruction prohibiting various testimony, including hearsay testimony indicating that any other patient of Singh had reported that he had engaged in sexual conduct with a patient and prohibiting testimony from Betz. On June 7, 2007, the trial court granted this motion, except that it took under advisement the prohibition on testimony by Betz.
On June 11, 2007, the jury trial began. The Patients called Singh and the following exchange took place:
[Singh's Counsel]: I'm going to object to that, Your Honor, as being irrelevant and outside the scope of the motion in limine, that's something that has already been covered.
Court: Sustained, although he already answered it.
Tr. at 264. Singh also testified during his presentation of evidence. During cross-examination, the following exchange occurred:
Q: Now has [sic] any other patients besides these three plaintiffs contended or claimed that you performed an inappropriate examination or touched them in an inappropriate way.
[Singh's counsel]: Your Honor, I'm going to object to that. It's irrelevant to the issues here that has [sic] been covered.
[Singh's counsel]: I'm going to object to that evidentiary harpoon, this has already been asked and answered, it's already been covered and I make the same objection I just made.
Court: Sustained!
Singh also called Lyday's niece, Holly Lyday, who had seen Singh on Lyday's suggestion. This suggestion came after Lyday had filed her complaint with the Review Panel. Holly testified that she had talked with Lyday about the allegations, and that Lyday "just laughed about it and said that her and some other girls were going to sue Doctor Singh, and that he had had her lift her shirt up and fondled them and all of this and that, but that she was lying about it." Id. at 332. Holly also testified that Lyday had asked her to testify that Singh had touched her inappropriately, and that after Holly refused, Lyday "got mad at me because I kept going to see him." Id. at 333. Holly also testified that Singh had never acted inappropriately toward her.
Sigh also introduced the video-taped deposition of Ruth Casteel. Casteel testified that she met Nichols while they were both in the psychiatric unit in Terre Haute Regional Hospital, and that on several occasions Nichols had offered her money to say that Singh had touched Casteel inappropriately.
After Singh rested, he moved, pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 50(A)(2), for judgment on the evidence, arguing that the Patients could not succeed as they had presented no expert testimony establishing that Singh's alleged misconduct had caused the Patients' alleged injuries or damages. The trial court denied Singh's motion.
On rebuttal, the Patients attempted to introduce Betz's Proposed Complaint for purposes of impeachment. Singh objected, and the trial court sustained the objection, stating:
It is my opinion that without the live witness here, who was not allowed to testify because she was not added to the witness list that there is not a sufficient foundation to show that this particular claimant had such a similar type of experience that she would be allowed to testify under 404(B) and therefore, merely bringing in the complaint in answer to his question that there was no other implies that there is such a type of signature and I think that the prejudicial nature of that outweighs the benefit of allowing it in just for the purpose of impeaching him on the answer "no" that's the basis of my ruling.
Id. at 612. The Patients also attempted to introduce the testimony of Tammie Young, who had been a patient of Singh's between 1998 and 1999. Patients' counsel claimed Young had contacted him the morning of the last day of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lessley v. City of Madison, Ind., Case No. 4:07-cv-0136-DFH-WGH.
... ... , and (b) a harmful contact with the person of the other directly or indirectly results." Singh v. Lyday, 889 N.E.2d 342, 360 (Ind. App.2008), quoting Mullins v. Parkview Hospital, Inc., 865 ... ...
- In re Reyes
- Jane Doe v. Vigo Cnty.
-
Duro Inc. v. Walton
... ... testimony of an expert witness on the issue is ... necessary.” Singh v. Lyday , 889 N.E.2d 342, ... 357 (Ind.Ct.App. 2008). Proximate cause is a question of fact ... ...