Wielgus v. Lopez

• Decision Date: 21 July 1988
• Docket Number: No. 64A03-8706-CV-149,64A03-8706-CV-149
• Citation: 525 N.E.2d 1272
• Parties: Phyllis M. WIELGUS and Richard S. Wielgus, Appellants (Plaintiffs Below), v. Santiago A. LOPEZ, M.D., and Arthur G. Pettis, M.D., Appellees (Defendants Below).
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

Page 1272

525 N.E.2d 1272

Phyllis M. WIELGUS and Richard S. Wielgus, Appellants (Plaintiffs Below), v. Santiago A. LOPEZ, M.D., and Arthur G. Pettis, M.D.,

Appellees (Defendants Below).

No. 64A03-8706-CV-149.

Court of Appeals of Indiana,

Third District.

July 21, 1988.

James J. Nagy, Munster, Walter J. Alvarez, Merrillville, for appellants.

Gregory R. Lyman, Singleton, Levy and Crist, Highland, for appellee Santiago A. Lopez, M.D.

David M. McTigue, Lloyd M. Allen, South Bend, for appellee Arthur G. Pettis, M.D.

HOFFMAN, Judge.

Phyllis M. Wielgus and Richard S. Wielgus bring this appeal from a judgment in favor of Santiago A. Lopez, M.D., and Arthur G. Pettis, M.D., after a jury trial in Porter County Superior Court.

The facts of this case, as taken most favorably to the verdict, are as follows: On June 4, 1980, Dr. Lopez performed a vaginal hysterectomy and an anterior bladder repair on Mrs. Wielgus in Methodist Hospital in Gary. Dr. Pettis was responsible for administering anesthesia to Mrs. Wielgus and for the recovery room treatment of Mrs. Wielgus.

After the surgery was completed, Mrs. Wielgus was admitted to the recovery room with a recorded blood pressure of 100/60. Dr. Pettis was later notified by Mary Mihok, the recovery room nurse, that Mrs. Wielgus' blood pressure had dropped. Dr. Pettis ordered the administration of three units of plasmanate and one unit of packed red cells over the course of the next hour and fifteen minutes. When these measures failed to significantly raise Mrs. Wielgus' blood pressure, Dr. Pettis concluded that Mrs. Wielgus may have been bleeding internally and notified Dr. Lopez. Dr. Lopez performed a second surgery on Mrs. Wielgus in which he repaired a torn ovarian vein.

The Wielguses present four issues, as restated, for appellate review:

(1) whether the trial court erred in omitting portions of Dr. Pettis' cross-examination from the video tape presentation to the jury of the deposition of Dr. Pettis;

(2) whether the trial court erred in reading Dr. Lopez' proposed Final Instruction No. 3 to the jury;

(3) whether the trial court erred in reading Dr. Pettis' proposed Final Instruction No. 3 to the jury; and

(4) whether the jury's verdict was contrary to law and contrary to the evidence presented at trial.

The Wielguses' first allegation of error is that the trial court erred in omitting portions of Dr. Pettis' cross-examination from the video tape presentation of Dr. Pettis' deposition. The limitation of cross-examination is within the discretion of the trial court, and a cause will not be reversed due to the limitation of cross-examination unless it appears there has been an abuse of discretion to the injury of the complaining party. Posey County v. Chamness (1982), Ind.App., 438 N.E.2d 1041, 1045.

The cross-examination omitted by the trial court consisted of questions to Dr. Pettis regarding notations in the hospital recovery room record, the time Dr. Pettis was notified of Mrs. Wielgus' blood pressure drop, the time Dr. Lopez was summoned to the hospital, and the possible procedure used by Dr. Lopez during Mrs. Wielgus' first surgery. The Wielguses argue that the omission of these questions and the subsequent loss of composure by Dr. Pettis constituted an abuse of discretion and harmed them in the presentation of their case to the jury.

The hospital recovery room record was introduced into evidence at trial and Dr. Pettis was cross-examined thoroughly in portions of the cross-examination admitted by the trial court regarding the record, the time he was notified of Mrs. Wielgus' blood pressure drop, and the time Dr. Lopez was summoned to the hospital. Further, Dr. Pettis lost his composure several times during the portion of the deposition's cross-examination that was shown to the jury. It is well within the trial court's discretion to limit repetitive cross-examination. See, Davis v. Eagle Products, Inc. (1986), Ind.App., 501 N.E.2d 1099, 1107.

The trial court also did not err in omitting cross-examination of Dr. Pettis regarding the possible procedure used by Dr. Lopez. Dr. Pettis made it clear that he neither saw Dr. Lopez perform the questioned procedure nor was he familiar with the surgical standard of care in Lake County. The Wielguses were not harmed and the trial court did not err in omitting portions of the deposed cross-examination from the evidence presented at trial.

The Wielguses' second allegation of error is that the trial court erred in reading Dr. Lopez' proposed Final Instruction No. 3 to the jury. The instruction in question reads:

"Defendants are allowed discretion in which to exercise their best medical judgment in making a diagnosis and selecting appropriate medical care and treatment where there is doubt...