WEBSTER et al v. CENTER FOR DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING, INC. et al
| BRIAN WEBSTER and COURTNEY WEBSTER |
| CDI INDIANA, LLC and CENTER FOR DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING, INC. |
| 1:2016cv02677 |
| October 7, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Indianapolis Office |
| Debra McVicker Lynch |
| Jane Magnus-Stinson |
| Personal Inj. Med. Malpractice |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Medical Malpractice |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
224
ORDER - Plaintiffs' Motion to Correct and Modify the Record 217 is GRANTED and the Clerk of Court is ORDERED to supplement the record with Filing No. 217; Filing No. 217-1; Filing No. 217-2; Filing No. 217-3, and a copy of this order, and to transmit the same to the Court of Appeals. (See Order). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 1/15/2019. (JDH)
|
|
Filing
192
ORDER - On Friday June 15, 2018, a jury returned a verdict for Plaintiffs Courtney and Brian Webster after finding that Defendant CDI Indiana, LLC ("CDI") was legally responsible for the conduct of a radiologist who negligently reviewed a CT examination performed on Ms. Webster, resulting in a missed diagnosis of recurrent, terminal rectal cancer. [Filing No. 167 ; Filing No. 166 -1 at 17.] The jury awarded Ms. Webster $14,000,000 and Mr. Webster $1,000,000. [Filing N o. 167 .] Presently pending before this Court are two motions filed contemporaneously by CDI that each seek to undo the jury's verdict: a Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), [Filing No. 184 ] , and a Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b), or, alternatively, for a New Trial or Remittitur pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a), [Filing No. 182 ]. The Court finds that CDI has failed to meet its burdens under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 50 and 59 and, therefore, CDI's Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), 184 , and its Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b), or, alternatively, for a New Trial or Remittitur pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a), 182 , are DENIED. (See Order). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 8/29/2018. (APD)
|
|
Filing
158
ORDER - In 2016, Plaintiffs Courtney and Brian Webster filed this lawsuit against CDI Indiana, LLC, alleging that Ms. Webster's recurrent rectal cancer went undiagnosed for over a year and a half after her CT scan was misread. On May 9, 2018, the Court ruled on three Motions to Exclude Expert Testimony, [Filing No. 135 ], in advance of the June 11, 2018 trial, and granted the Websters' Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Anthony J. Senagore, M.D., [Filing No. 82 ]. On May 16, 20 18, Defendant filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration of Exclusion of Expert Testimony of Anthony J. Senagore, M.D. [Filing No. 140 .] For the reasons stated in this Order, Defendant's Motion to Reconsider 140 is DENIED. (SEE ORDER). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 6/7/2018. (APD)
|
|
Filing
135
ORDER - Plaintiffs Courtney and Brian Webster filed this lawsuit against the Center for Diagnostic Imaging, Inc. and CDI Indiana, LLC (collectively, "Defendants"), alleging that Ms. Webster's recurrent rectal cancer went undiagnosed for over a year and a half after her CT scan was misread. In advance of the June 11, 2018 trial in this matter, the Websters filed three Motions to Exclude Expert Testimony. Each of these Motions highlights the importance of cross-examination. Pr esently pending before the Court are: (1) the Websters' Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Thomas R. Ireland, Ph.D., [Filing No. 80 ]; (2) the Websters' Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Anthony J. Senagore, M.D., [Filing No. 82 ]; an d (3) the Websters' Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Neerav Mehta, M.D., [Filing No. 84 ]. For the reasons stated in this Order, the Court: DENIES the Websters' Motion to Exclude the Testimony Thomas Ireland, Ph.D., 80 ; GRANTS the Websters' Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Anthony J. Senagore, M.D., 82 ; and GRANTS the Websters' Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Neerav Mehta, M.D., 84 . (SEE ORDER). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 5/9/2018. (APD)
|
|
Filing
78
ORDER - This case involves a suit for damages stemming from a missed cancer recurrence diagnosis. Courtney Webster alleges that her recurrent rectal cancer went undiagnosed for over a year and a half after her CT scan was misread. She and her husb and Brian filed suit to hold Center for Diagnostic Imaging, Inc. and CDI Indiana, LLC (collectively, "Defendants") liable as a result of the misdiagnosis. On August 31, 2017, this Court denied the parties' respective Cross-Motions f or Summary Judgment, holding that jury questions existed regarding agency and reliance. [Filing No. 50 .] A jury trial in this matter is set to begin on June 11, 2018. [Filing No. 35 .] Defendants now move the Court to bifurcate the trial or, in the alternative, to hold the trial "in two distinct phases." [Filing No. 73 at 2.] For the reasons stated herein, Defendants' Motion is DENIED. Having exercised its discretion and found that bifurcation is unnecessary and inappropriate under FRCP 42(b), the Court DENIES Defendants' Motion For Bifurcation Of Trial Or, In The Alternative, For Trial In Two Phases, 73 . (SEE ORDER). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 2/1/2018. (APD)
|
|
Filing
61
ORDER - This case involves a suit for damages stemming from a missed cancer recurrence diagnosis. Courtney Webster alleges that her recurrent rectal cancer went undiagnosed for over a year and a half after her CT scan was misread. She and her husb and Brian filed suit to hold Center for Diagnostic Imaging, Inc. and CDI Indiana, LLC (collectively, "Defendants") liable as a result of the misdiagnosis. On August 31, 2017, this Court denied the parties' respective Cross-Motions f or Summary Judgment, holding that two jury questions existed regarding agency and reliance. Defendants now move the Court to amend its Order denying Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment to certify the Order for interlocutory appeal. Defend ants have failed to satisfy the criteria for interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) and their Motion for Amendment of Order Denying Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment to Include Certification for Interlocutory Appeal, [Filing No. 52 ], is therefore DENIED. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 11/21/2017. (APD)
|
|
Filing
50
ORDER - This case involves a suit for damages stemming from a missed cancer recurrence diagnosis. Courtney Webster alleges that her recurrent rectal cancer went undiagnosed for over a year and a half after her CT scan was misread. She and her husb and Brian now seek to hold Center for Diagnostic Imaging, Inc. and CDI Indiana, LLC (collectively, "Defendants") liable for damages as a result of the misdiagnosis. Defendants, however, contend that they are not liable because the doctor who misread Ms. Webster's scan was neither their actual nor apparent agent. This matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and on Courtney and Brian Webster's Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. I n addition, Defendants filed a Motion to for Leave to File a Rebuttal, which the Court will also consider. Sword v. NKC Hospitals, 714 N.E.2d 142 (Ind. 1999) applies to the facts of this case. It is now for a jury to decide whether, consistent wit h the Sword factors, Defendants acted in a manner which would lead a reasonable person to conclude that Dr. Walker was Defendants' employee or agent, and whether Ms. Webster acted in reliance upon the conduct of Defendants or their agent, co nsistent with ordinary care and prudence. For the reasons set forth herein, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, [Filing No. 39 ], and the Websters' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, [Filing No. 43 ], are DENIED. In addition, D efendants' Motion for Leave to File a Short Rebuttal, [Filing No. 47 ], falls outside of the purview of Local Rule 56(d) and is DENIED. As a final matter, the Court requests that the Magistrate Judge set a settlement conference with the parties at her earliest convenience. (See Order). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 8/31/2017. (APD)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Indiana Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
