Kent Carey Case

Brent Carey and Stacey Carey v. Indiana Physical Therapy Inc. and Stephens Connelly, P.T.
Court of Appeals of Indiana,
2010
No. 02A03-0910-CV-473.

FACTS Carey sustained injuries in an automobile accident for which he received monies from the original tortfeasor. The Plaintiff, due to his injuries, was referred by his doctor to Stephen Connelly, a physical therapist at Indiana Physical Therapy, Inc. Connelly preformed a manipulation technique, “compressions”” on the Plaintiff during his third session which caused a great deal of discomfort. Connelly “laid his chest across my arms and used his body to put force on my arms and push” (App. at 124.) Carey claimed the therapist only stopped when he “broke out in tears and screamed out in pain.”

Based on these facts summary judgement was granted for Connelly.

DISCUSSION AND DECISION Summary judgement is a type of motion a plaintiff or defendant can make where the judge makes a decision based on the facts of the case using the law. Summary judgement is appropriate only where there is no issue of material fact. Due to the fact that the neurologist’s testimony presented no material fact that the RSD was caused proximately by the actions of Connelly there was no further evidence to present therefore summary judgement was filed in favor of Connelly.

In order to maintain a claim regarding medical malpractice, a plaintiff must show 1) a duty owed to the plaintiff by the defendant (inherent, voluntary, or statutory) 2) a breach of the duty by allowing the conduct to fall below the standard of care, and 3) a compensable injury proximately caused by the defendant’s breach of duty. Carey was able to establish an inherent duty was owed to him by Connelly but was not able to provide evidence to support his claim about the breach of duty by conduct or that his injury was caused solely by the conduct of