Lloyd G. Court of Appeals of Indiana. Mark W. Baeverstad , Andrew L. Jason A. Scheele , Jessica L. Benjamin D. Ice , William A. MAY , Judge. As Perry did not provide expert testimony to rebut the medical review panel 's opinion there was no malpractice that caused his injury, 1 we affirm. Perry brought a proposed medical malpractice complaint in and amended it in January to add more defendants.
The medical review panel unanimously found all the defendants except one hospital met the appropriate standard of care. It found the conduct of the hospital that did not meet the standard of care was not a factor in Perry's injuries.
The Providers moved for summary judgment. Perry submitted a brief in response, but the record does not reflect he designated expert testimony to rebut the panel 's findings. The trial court granted the Providers' motions. Perry's motion to correct error was denied. Summary judgment is appropriate only if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Oelling v. Rao , N. Trial Rule 56 C. The burden is on the moving party to prove the nonexistence of a genuine issue of material fact; if there is any doubt, the motion should be resolved in favor of the party opposing the motion.
Oelling , N. Once the movant has sustained this burden, however, the opponent may not rest on the mere allegations or denials in his pleadings, but must respond by setting forth specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial. In a medical malpractice action based on negligence the plaintiff must establish 1 a duty on the part of the defendant in relation to the plaintiff ; 2 failure on the part of defendant to conform its conduct to the requisite standard of care required by the relationship; and 3 an injury to the plaintiff resulting from that failure.
