This discussion focuses on the Indiana Supreme Court’s ruling in Tunstall v. Manning and the question of whether an expert’s history of professional disciplinary actions was admissible.
Seventh Circuit Provides Guidance on Certifying Class Definition and Claims Differing from Those Proposed in Complaint
This week we discuss the Seventh Circuit’s opinion in Beaton v. SpeedyPC Software, which weighed in on the propriety of certifying a class narrower than the definition proposed in the complaint and upon claims not specifically identified in the complaint. We also briefly look at eight other appellate decisions from the past two weeks that include: (i) holding that the misuse defense under Indiana’s Products Liability Act can be a complete defense; (ii) a party’s complete about-face can be a basis for surprise to obtain relief from a judgment under Trial Rule 60(B)(1); (iii) multi-year assertion that a defendant is subject to the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act and numerous delays to await a medical review panel determination can be sufficient to estop a plaintiff from arguing that the defendant is not subject to the Medical Malpractice Act; (iv) contracts attached to complaints are admissible as evidence at trial even if not specifically identified in final exhibits list; (v) a claim for unjust enrichment can be made even if the benefits are provided by a third-party; (vi) courts may commit reversible error when elevating formality over substantial justice with overly rigid application of procedure at trial; (vii) illustrating considerations in applying the doctrines of apparent authority and apparent agency; and (viii) citations to the record along with other citations count toward the word limit in federal appellate filings despite no rule specifically stating that citations are included in the word count.
Indiana Court of Appeals: $1.3M Verdict Not Excessive for Rear-End Collision & Not Reversible Error to Exclude Evidence of Prior Discipline of Medical Expert
This week we look at Tunstall v. Manning, in which the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed a $1.3M verdict for a woman who suffered spinal injuries in a rear-end collision and further ruled that it was not reversible error, if error at all, to exclude evidence of the plaintiff’s medical expert’s prior professional discipline because he was no longer subject to discipline at the time of trial.
This week we look at the issue of spoliation of evidence and when sanctions may be imposed for lose or destruction of evidence.