Indiana Medical Malpractice Lawyer Blog

The Indiana medical malpractice attorneys at Garau Germano Hanley & Pennington, P.C. received a $750,000.50 verdict in Fort Wayne, Indiana on March 10, 2011. It was the third verdict won by the firm in the past seven weeks.

The case, Brad & Tiffany Kelly v. Ashok Kadambi, M.D., involved a patient who was treated by an endocrinologist for hyperthyroidism. The patient was told by the endocrinologist that surgery was the only option for treating the disease. In reality, the condition could have been treated with radioactive iodine. Radioactive iodine is a safe and effective treatment for hyperthyroidism and is the treatment of choice in the United States because it avoids the risks and expense of surgery.

In reliance on the endocrinologist's statement that surgery was his only option, the patient underwent the surgery and suffered severe complications. His vocal cords were paralyzed, leaving him with permanent voice and breathing impairments. He brought suit alleging that the endocrinolgist had failed to obtain his informed consent by not providing accurate information regarding the alternatives to surgery.

The case was tried by Barbara Germano and Jerry Garau. The Indiana medical malpractice lawyers at Garau Germano Hanley & Pennington, P.C. are available to assist you with any potential malpractice claims.

The current health care debate has raised many questions about the decisions made by Indiana doctors in treating their patients. Lost in the discussion is the fact that, by law in Indiana, the right to make treatment decisions lies with the patient.
Indiana Code Sec. 34-18-13-3 requires Indiana physicians to obtain their patient's "informed consent" before any "treatment, procedure test, or examination" is performed by the physician. In order to obtain informed consent, the doctor must advise the patient of:
(1) The general nature of the patient's condition.
(2) The proposed treatment, procedure, examination, or test.
(3) The expected outcome of the treatment, procedure, examination, or test.
(4) The material risks of the treatment, procedure, examination, or test.
(5) The reasonable alternatives to the treatment, procedure, examination, or test.
If a doctor treats a patient without obtaining the patient's informed consent to the treatment and the patient is injured, the patient may have a malpractice claim against the doctor. The situation frequently arises when doctors fail to tell their patients of risks of or alternatives to proposed surgery.
The attorneys at Garau Germano Hanley & Pennington, P.C. have a wealth of experience in dealing with Indiana malpractice claims involving issues of informed consent. If you or a loved one has been injured by malpractice, please feel free to contact us.