Cutter v. Herbst

4 Citing cases

  1. Green v. Robertson

    56 N.E.3d 682 (Ind. App. 2016)   Cited 6 times
    Noting that a claimant may gain access to the PCF by agreeing to a settlement in which the present payment of money and the cost of future payments exceeds $187,000

    [13] A plaintiff generally must prove each of the following elements in a medical malpractice case: (1) the physician owed a duty to the plaintiff; (2) the physician breached that duty; and (3) the breach proximately caused the plaintiff's injuries. Cutter v. Herbst, 945 N.E.2d 240, 247 (Ind.Ct.App.2011). A plaintiff who proves each of these elements “may recover damages for all injuries the defendant proximately caused.”

  2. Tucker v. Harrison

    973 N.E.2d 46 (Ind. App. 2012)   Cited 9 times

    The elements of a medical malpractice case are that: (1) the physician owed a duty to the plaintiff; (2) the physician breached that duty; and (3) the breach proximately caused the plaintiff's injuries. Cutter v. Herbst, 945 N.E.2d 240, 247 (Ind.Ct.App.2011). The pertinent issue in this case is whether the surgery as performed by Dr. Harrison was a proximate cause of the ovarian failure and subsequent infertility suffered by Tucker.

  3. Manley v. Sherer

    960 N.E.2d 815 (Ind. App. 2011)   Cited 6 times

    To prevail on a medical malpractice claim, a plaintiff must prove: (1) the physician owed a duty to the plaintiff; (2) the physician breached that duty; and (3) the breach proximately caused the plaintiff's injuries. Cutter v. Herbst, 945 N.E.2d 240, 247 (Ind.Ct.App.2011). The breach of duty and proximate cause elements of a negligence claim are particularly fact-sensitive and rarely suitable for resolution on summary judgment.

  4. Pannell v. Carter

    No. 49A02-1003-PL-472 (Ind. App. Sep. 14, 2011)

    A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court or if the court has misinterpreted the law. Cutter v. Herbst, 945 N.E.2d 240, 245 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). If, as here, a court grants a motion to dismiss under Trial Rule 12(B)(6) for the pleading's failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, the plaintiff may amend the pleading as a matter of right within 10 days after the service of notice of the court's order.