Kranda v. HOUSER-NORBORG MEDICAL CORPORATION

Indiana Court of Appeals

Kranda v. HOUSER-NORBORG MEDICAL CORPORATION

424 N.E.2d 1064, 1981 Ind. App. LEXIS 1620

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 24, 1981

Docket3-480A107

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 424 N.E.2d 1064 (Kranda v. HOUSER-NORBORG MEDICAL CORPORATION) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kranda v. HOUSER-NORBORG MEDICAL CORPORATION, 424 N.E.2d 1064, 1981 Ind. App. LEXIS 1620 (Ind. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

YOUNG, Judge.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

Kranda petitions this court for rehearing, 419 N.E.2d 1024, raising, among other things, our failure to address a claimed error in the refusal of her tendered instruction numbered four (4).

This instruction specifically set out the physician’s duty to keep abreast of progress and modern methods of diagnosis and treatment and that failure to do so, which results in injury, could permit liability to be imposed upon that physician. Kranda generally argues that this instruction is a correct statement of the law. Accepting this as true, it presents no question in reference to the refusal to give these instructions. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Sargent, (1949) 119 Ind.App. 195, 88 N.E.2d 793. She has failed to set out a factual basis for giving this instruction and has failed to offer any argu *1065 ment to establish that the substance of this instruction was not adequately covered by other instructions. See, e. g., Dahlberg v. Ogle, (1978) 268 Ind. 30, 373 N.E.2d 159.

As we noted in our earlier opinion, other instructions were given which did establish the duty owed to petitioner Kranda and the standard of care required. Refusal of an instruction is not error if the substance of it is covered by other instructions which are given. Dahlberg, supra.

Rehearing denied.

MILLER, J., concurs. HOFFMAN, P. J. (sitting by designation), concurs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

YOUNG, Judge.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

Kranda petitions this court for rehearing, 419 N.E.2d 1024, raising, among other things, our failure to address a claimed error in the refusal of her tendered instruction numbered four (4).

This instruction specifically set out the physician’s duty to keep abreast of progress and modern methods of diagnosis and treatment and that failure to do so, which results in injury, could permit liability to be imposed upon that physician. Kranda generally argues that this instruction is a correct statement of the law. Accepting this as true, it presents no question in reference to the refusal to give these instructions. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Sargent, (1949) 119 Ind.App. 195, 88 N.E.2d 793. She has failed to set out a factual basis for giving this instruction and has failed to offer any argu *1065 ment to establish that the substance of this instruction was not adequately covered by other instructions. See, e. g., Dahlberg v. Ogle, (1978) 268 Ind. 30, 373 N.E.2d 159.

As we noted in our earlier opinion, other instructions were given which did establish the duty owed to petitioner Kranda and the standard of care required. Refusal of an instruction is not error if the substance of it is covered by other instructions which are given. Dahlberg, supra.

Rehearing denied.

MILLER, J., concurs. HOFFMAN, P. J. (sitting by designation), concurs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

424 N.E.2d 1064, 1981 Ind. App. LEXIS 1620, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kranda-v-houser-norborg-medical-corporation-indctapp-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack