Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  
 

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

16-2677 - WEBSTER et al v. CENTER FOR DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING, INC. et al


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
16-2677 - WEBSTER et al v. CENTER FOR DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING, INC. et al
August 31, 2017
PDF | More
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 husband 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. In 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 with 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, consistent 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, Defendants' 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)
November 21, 2017
PDF | More
[Filing No. 52], is therefore DENIED. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 11/21/2017. (APD)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 husband 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 for 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. Defendants have failed to satisfy the criteria for interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 1292(b) and their Motion for Amendment of Order Denying Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment to Include Certification for Interlocutory Appeal,
February 1, 2018
PDF | More
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 husband 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 for 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)
May 9, 2018
PDF | More
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. Presently 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]; and (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)