Vergara v. Doan

593 N.E.2d 185 (1992)

Quick Summary

Quick Summary Icon

Jose and Concepcion Vergara (plaintiffs) sued Dr. John Doan (defendant) for medical malpractice after their child suffered injuries during birth. The issue was whether to uphold the ‘modified locality rule’ for determining the standard of care in medical malpractice cases.

The Supreme Court of Indiana abandoned the ‘modified locality rule,’ adopting a new standard that considers various factors, including locality, to determine reasonable medical care. The Court affirmed the trial court’s verdict in favor of Dr. Doan.

Facts of the Case

Facts of the case Icon

Dr. John Doan (defendant) was the physician who delivered Javier Vergara, the child of Jose and Concepcion Vergara (plaintiffs), at the Adams Memorial Hospital in Decatur, Indiana. During the birth, Javier sustained severe and permanent injuries.

The Vergaras alleged that Dr. Doan’s negligence during the delivery process caused these injuries. An expert witness for the Vergaras testified that Dr. Doan’s actions did not meet the standard of care expected of physicians in similar communities.

The case centered on the application of the ‘modified locality rule’ which considers the standard of care in similar localities when evaluating a medical malpractice claim.

Procedural Posture and History

History Icon
  1. The Vergaras filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against Dr. Doan alleging negligence during their child’s birth.
  2. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Dr. Doan.
  3. The appellate court affirmed the jury’s decision.
  4. The Vergaras appealed to the Supreme Court of Indiana.

I.R.A.C. Format


Issue Icon

Whether the ‘modified locality rule’ should continue to be applied in medical malpractice cases in Indiana.

Rule of Law

Rule Icon

A physician must exercise that degree of care, skill, and proficiency exercised by reasonably careful, skillful, and prudent practitioners in the same class, acting under the same or similar circumstances.

Reasoning and Analysis

Reasoning Icon

The Supreme Court of Indiana recognized that the ‘modified locality rule’ was outdated due to advances in communication, travel, and medical education, which have reduced disparities in medical care between rural and urban areas.

The court observed that this rule could potentially allow for a lower standard of care in smaller communities and complicate the definition of ‘similar communities.’ The court decided to adopt a new standard that considers locality as one factor among many in determining if a doctor acted reasonably.

The court examined whether the instruction given at trial, which was correct at the time under the ‘modified locality rule,’ required reversal in light of the new standard.

The court determined that the instruction was harmless because it did not likely affect the outcome of the trial, given that other instructions referenced a national standard and that evidence was allowed from an expert witness who was not from a similar locality.


Conclusion Icon

The Supreme Court of Indiana affirmed the judgment of the trial court, holding that Dr. Doan was not negligent based on the newly adopted standard of care.

Dissenting Opinions

Judge Icon

Justice Givan concurred in result but expressed that there was no substantial difference between the ‘new standard’ and the ‘modified locality rule,’ suggesting that the majority’s decision merely articulated a distinction without a practical difference.

Key Takeaways

Takeaway Icon
  1. The ‘modified locality rule’ for determining standard of care in medical malpractice cases in Indiana has been abandoned.
  2. A new standard focusing on reasonable care exercised by similar practitioners under similar circumstances has been adopted.
  3. Advances in communication, travel, and medical education have diminished disparities between rural and urban medical care, influencing this change.
  4. The decision to maintain the trial court’s verdict suggests that even with the old instructions, the jury’s verdict would likely have been the same.
  5. Justice Givan’s concurring opinion highlights a potential lack of practical change between the old rule and the new standard.

Relevant FAQs of this case

What role does technological advancement play in establishing standards of care in professional negligence cases?

Technological advancement contributes significantly to the establishment of standards of care by facilitating access to up-to-date knowledge, best practices, and expert consultation. As technology levels the playing field between different locales and professionals, it encourages the adoption of uniform standards that reflect current understanding and techniques within a profession.

  • For example: With telemedicine, a rural doctor can consult with specialists in real-time, thus the standard of care expected is no less than that of urban counterparts who have direct access to such expertise.

How has the concept of 'similar circumstances' evolved in relation to professional standards of care?

The concept of ‘similar circumstances’ has evolved from a geographical and local practice-based view to a broader perspective that includes situational factors such as patient conditions, available resources, and prevailing national or international professional standards.

  • For example: If a surgeon performs an emergency procedure under less-than-ideal conditions, the standard of care will take into account these exigencies rather than solely comparing it to elective procedures in fully equipped operating rooms.

In what ways do courts address disparities in professional standards of care between rural and urban areas?

Courts address disparities by moving away from the ‘locality rule’ which might allow for different standards based on geography. Instead, they adopt a more uniform standard of care reflecting advancements in the profession as a whole, regardless of the practitioner’s location.

  • For example: A rural doctor is expected to know and follow cardiovascular treatment protocols that are widely disseminated and accepted nationally, rather than use outdated methods previously common in their locale.


Last updated

Was this case brief helpful?

More Case Briefs in Torts