Christopher Alexander d/b/a Crystal Tiger Holdings, LLC v. Djuric Trucking, Inc. and William H. Walden, as Special Representative of the Estate of Mark Phillip Sikorski (mem. dec.) ( 2019 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before any Sep 20 2019, 8:56 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Bryan L. Ciyou Crystal G. Rowe
Indianapolis, Indiana New Albany, Indiana
Erin A. Clancy
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Christopher Alexander d/b/a September 20, 2019
Crystal Tiger Holdings, LLC, Court of Appeals Case No.
Appellant-Plaintiff, 19A-CT-366
Appeal from the
v. Lake Superior Court
The Honorable
Djuric Trucking, Inc. and John M. Sedia, Judge
William H. Walden, as Special Trial Court Cause No.
Representative of the Estate of 45D01-1705-CT-106
Mark Phillip Sikorski,
Appellees-Defendants
Altice, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CT-366 | September 20, 2019 Page 1 of 22
Case Summary
[1] As Mark Phillip Sikorski was driving a semi tractor-trailer truck in the course
and scope of his employment with Djuric Trucking, Inc. (Djuric), he suffered
cardiac arrest and the truck left the road and struck a building owned by
Christopher Alexander d/b/a Crystal Tiger Holdings, LLC (Alexander).
Alexander brought suit against Djuric and William H. Walden as Special
Representative or the Estate of Mark Phillip Sikorski (the Estate) alleging,
among other things, negligence. Alexander appeals the trial court’s entry of
summary judgment in favor of Djuric and the Estate (collectively, Djuric
Defendants), raising two issues that we consolidate and restate as whether the
trial court properly determined that Djuric Defendants were entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.
[2] We affirm.
Facts & Procedural History
[3] At all times relevant to this appeal, Sikorski was a truck driver for Djuric. In
November 2014, he underwent a commercial driver fitness examination by a
certified medical examiner, as required by Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations. After requesting and receiving information from Sikorski
regarding his use of a CPAP 1 machine for sleep apnea, the medical examiner
determined that Sikorski was physically qualified to operate a commercial
1
CPAP stands for continuous positive airway pressure.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CT-366 | September 20, 2019 Page 2 of 22
motor vehicle and issued to Sikorski a Medical Examiner’s Certificate effective
for two years, through November 3, 2016. 2
[4] Around 12:23 p.m. on May 15, 2015, forty-five-year-old Sikorski was driving a
semi-tractor trailer westbound on U.S. Highway 30 near Pierceton, Indiana,
when he suffered a cardiac event and either died or lost consciousness. The
truck crossed the center line, went over the eastbound lanes, and crashed into a
vacant commercial building, which was owned by Alexander, causing property
damage. Sikorski was pronounced dead at the scene, but no one else was
harmed in the accident. The next day, an autopsy was performed by
pathologist Pramod K. Carpenter, M.D., who concluded that the manner of
death was “Natural” and the cause of death was “Marked Myocardial
Hypertrophy and Coronary Atherosclerosis.” Appellant’s Appendix Vol. II at 42.
[5] On May 12, 2017, Alexander filed a Complaint for Damages alleging that
Sikorski was negligent in a number of respects, including the following: he
knew or should have known he was suffering from heart problems that resulted
in heart failure on May 15, 2015; he should have known that it was medically
necessary to obtain medical treatment in the weeks leading up to the heart
2
Under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, a person “shall not drive a commercial motor vehicle”
without a “medical examiner’s certificate that [the person] is physically qualified.” 49 C.F.R. § 391.41(a).
Specifically, “the medical examiner is required to certify that the driver does not have any physical, mental,
or organic condition that might affect the driver’s ability to operate a commercial motor vehicle safely.” 49
C.F.R. § 391.43(f). A driver is physically qualified if, among other things, he has “no current clinical
diagnosis of myocardial infarction, angina pectoris, coronary insufficiency, thrombosis, or any other
cardiovascular disease of a variety known to be accompanied by syncope, dyspnea, collapse, or congestive
cardiac failure.” 49 C.F.R. § 391.41(b)(4).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CT-366 | September 20, 2019 Page 3 of 22
failure and crash; and he “[f]ailed to follow guidelines related to medical
conditions precluding the ability to drive a semi-tractor.” 3 Id. at 34. Alexander
asserted that under respondeat superior Djuric was responsible for any and all
actions of Sikorski, including his failure to seek or obtain medical care for chest
pain and other signs of heart problems in the weeks before the crash. Alexander
also asserted that Djuric was liable under theories of negligent hiring, retention,
and supervision of Sikorski. Alexander asserted in his complaint that his
building was totally destroyed, and he “has been unable to rebuild or use the
building.” Id. at 36. Djuric Defendants’ answer asserted as an affirmative
defense, among other things, that the accident “was the result of an
unforeseeable sudden emergency that was not of Defendants [sic] own
making.” Id. at 39.
[6] In October 2018, Djuric Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment
asserting that they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Alexander’s
negligence claims because the collision and damages resulted from a sudden
medical emergency, i.e., Sikorski’s “sudden, unforeseeable heart attack,” which
Sikorski “did not know and could not have foreseen . . . was likely to occur on
the date of the accident.” 4 Appellant’s Appendix Vol. II at 17.
3
Alexander also alleged that Sikorski operated the truck in violation of Federal and Indiana law by driving at
an unreasonable speed under the circumstances. However, this does not appear to be at issue in this appeal.
4
In their motion for summary judgment, Djuric Defendants also asserted that, under Indiana law, “a
Plaintiff cannot simultaneously bring claims for vicarious liability and for negligent hiring, retention, and/or
supervision against a company when the company has admitted the alleged tortfeasor was acting in the
course and scope of his employment at the time of the alleged negligence[,]” and because, here, Djuric
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CT-366 | September 20, 2019 Page 4 of 22
[7] In support of its summary judgment motion, Djuric Defendants designated the
following evidence: Alexander’s complaint; Djuric’s answer; the autopsy
report; the November 2014 Medical Examiner’s Certificate; and an affidavit of
Sikorski’s wife, Terri Sikorski, averring that she spoke to Sikorski by phone
about twelve minutes prior to the accident, as he was driving, and he sounded
well and in good spirits and he did not complain or indicate that he felt ill,
fatigued, or in pain, or that he was experiencing any symptoms of a heart
attack. The autopsy report stated that Sikorski was forty-five years old, 6’ 2”
and weighed 338 pounds, and the report included the following:
ANATOMIC FINDINGS.
1. No acute traumatic cause of death
2. Myocardial hypertrophy (590 grams); marked coronary
atherosclerosis with focal 85-90% narrowing
3. Marked pulmonary congestion
4. Compression fracture C4 vertebra with minimal hemorrhage
admitted that Sikorski was driving in the course and scope of his employment, Sikorski’s claims for negligent
hiring/retention/supervision are barred. Id. at 17, 29. Alexander appears to not dispute this proposition on
appeal, stating, “The Djuric Defendants have admitted that Sikorski was in the course and scope of his
employment, leaving the issue as one of negligence against the Estate and negligence against Djuric under a
respondeat superior theory.” Appellant’s Brief at 6.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CT-366 | September 20, 2019 Page 5 of 22
5. Deep laceration to right forehead and minor abrasions to face,
chest, shoulders, arm, hands, and left lower leg with minimal
hemorrhage
6. Sleep apnea, history
7. Obesity (BMI= 43.4)
8. Moderate hepatosteatosis
Appellant’s Appendix Vol. II at 42.
[8] Alexander timely filed a Response in opposition to the motion for summary
judgment, asserting that Sikorski crashed into the building “because of [his]
heart failure stemming from medical conditions [he] knew about since 2007”
and that the sudden medical emergency defense was not available where the
person knew or should have known about the condition. Id. at 51. Alexander
argued that Sikorski’s known medical conditions were a “ticking time bomb”
that Sikorski could have prevented with proper care. Id. at 56. Alexander
asserted that genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment and
that, even if the sudden medical emergency doctrine was available as a defense,
it was a fact determination for the jury. In support of his opposition to
summary judgment, Alexander designated the following evidence: the
Affidavit of David M. Fletcher, M.D.; VA medical records; Sikorski’s
employment application; his death certificate; and the autopsy report.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CT-366 | September 20, 2019 Page 6 of 22
[9] Particularly relevant to this appeal is the Affidavit of Dr. Fletcher, who
Alexander retained “to render opinions concerning the medical [commercial
driver’s license] qualifications of and the foreseeability of Mark Sikorski’s . . .
acute health issue that occurred on May 15, 2015 that resulted in him crashing
into a building.” Id. at 63. Dr. Fletcher is board certified in occupational and
environmental medicine, and he is a Certified Medical Review Officer, with his
practice including medical certification for commercial motor vehicle drivers,
referred to as DOT medical examinations. Dr. Fletcher performs an average of
1000 DOT physicals per year, and he averred that he is “intimately familiar
with the regulatory requirements for medical certification for commercial motor
vehicle drivers under the Federal motor carrier safety regulations, as well as
FMCSA guidelines for determining fitness for driving.” Id. at 62. Dr. Fletcher
identified materials that he reviewed and relied upon, which included industry
regulations, various scientific, research, and reference materials, and documents
related specifically to Sikorski including: Djuric’s driver qualification and
personnel files on Sikorski; Sikorski’s DOT medical exams for the years 2012-
2014; and VA medical records.
[10] Dr. Fletcher averred that Sikorski “was erroneously given a two-year
certification in November 2014 by [the medical examiner] when he was being
treated for [obstructive sleep apnea].” Id. at 78. Dr. Fletcher also stated that
Djuric violated federal regulations by allowing Sikorski to drive without
providing documentation that his obstructive sleep apnea was controlled and
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CT-366 | September 20, 2019 Page 7 of 22
that Djuric should have independently monitored Sikorski’s health conditions
regardless of Sikorski’s medical certificate.
[11] Referring to certain published research, Dr. Fletcher stated that having three of
thirteen concomitant medical conditions would put an individual at a
statistically elevated risk of crash and merited additional scrutiny during
medical certification exams and that Sikorski had the following three
conditions: obstructive sleep apnea, hypertension, and a BMI greater than 35.
Dr. Fletcher also said that Sikorski, as part of his licensing and training, was
required to learn the physical requirements to be fit for duty to drive a
commercial vehicle and, at each DOT exam, Sikorski would have been
reminded of these requirements as they are written on the DOT medical
examination forms.
[12] Dr. Fletcher’s Affidavit included the following opinions:
IT IS MY OPINION TO A REASONABLE DEGREE OF
MEDICAL CERTAINTY THAT THE SUDDEN CARDIAC
ARREST AND LOSS OF CONSCIOUSNESS THAT
OCCURRED ON MAY 15, 2015 WAS FORSEEABLE.
The cause of Mr. Sikorski’s death was due to sudden cardiac
arrest due to his underlying cardiovascular disease that had not
been properly evaluated and treated before he drove on May 15,
2015.
***
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CT-366 | September 20, 2019 Page 8 of 22
This fatal cardiac event was foreseeable and the prevention of
such an episode is why commercial vehicle safety regulations are
in place to prevent these high-risk drivers from being on the road.
Mr. Sikorski’s cardiovascular condition disqualified him from
operating a commercial vehicle. Mr. Sikorski had several
medical conditions, when unmanaged individually and
collectively contributed to his sudden incapacitation that was
foreseeable.
A person with a current clinical diagnosis of a cardiovascular
disease of a variety known to be accompanied by syncope,
dyspnea, collapse, or congestive cardiac failure is not physically
qualified to drive a commercial motor vehicle according to
industry standards and regulations cited in 4 CFR 391.41(b)(4).
***
According to co-workers, Mr. Sikorski had classic signs of angina
related to his severe untreated heart disease, but Mr. Sikorski
ignored the recommendation to seek medical treatment.
***
If Sikorski had sought treatment as recommended, this accident
could have been prevented.
***
MR. SIKORSKI KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN NOT
TO OPERATE A COMMERCIAL VEHICLE DUE TO THE
RISK OF A SIGNIFICANT CARDIAC EVENT.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CT-366 | September 20, 2019 Page 9 of 22
Appellant’s Appendix Vol. II at 70-72, 74 (capitalization in original).
[13] Djuric Defendants filed a Reply, arguing that Alexander failed to designate any
admissible evidence to establish the existence of a genuine issue of material fact
and that “the only admissible evidence” designated by Alexander was Sikorski’s
employment application, death certificate, and autopsy report, “and none of
this evidence creates a genuine issue of material fact as to the dispositive issue
in this case, which is: Whether Mark Sikorski knew or could have foreseen that
he would sustain a sudden medical emergency, that being heart failure, on May
15, 2015 while operating his vehicle, such that he should have pulled over or
not driven at all that day in order to prevent an accident.” Id. at 93.
[14] Along with its Reply, Djuric Defendants filed a Motion to Strike, which asked
the trial court to strike certain evidence that Alexander had designated in
support of its Response and Opposition to Summary Judgment, namely Dr.
Fletcher’s Affidavit and the VA records. With regard to the Affidavit,
Alexander asserted that it “references and cites to numerous exhibits, including
records” that “are not attached to his affidavit or authenticated in any way.”
Id. at 104-05. Further, Djuric Defendants argued that the Affidavit “contains
numerous inadmissible factual statements relating to Sikorski’s medical history
of CPAP compliance, obstructive sleep apnea, hypertension, obesity, COPD,
and smoking” that should be stricken “because they are irrelevant and/or
constitute hearsay[.]” Id. at 105-06. Similarly, they argued that the Affidavit’s
statement that, according to the coroner’s report, Sikorski had been
complaining of chest pain to co-workers constitutes hearsay and is inadmissible
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CT-366 | September 20, 2019 Page 10 of 22
pursuant to Ind. Evidence Rule 802. Also, Djuric Defendants asserted that
“numerous . . . opinions relating to Sikorski’s health and the foreseeability of
Sikorski’s sudden cardiac arrest” and “pure legal conclusions” were not
admissible under Evid. Rules 702, 703, or 704(b). Id. at 108, 111.
[15] Djuric Defendants also moved to strike VA records that Alexander had
designated. The records were from November 2007, January 2009, and
February 2014. Djuric Defendants argued that the records (1) were not
authenticated as required by Evid. R. 901, (2) contained inadmissible hearsay,
and (3) were “completely irrelevant to whether Sikorski knew or could have
foreseen he would sustain heart failure while operating his vehicle on May 15,
2015.” Id. at 112. Alexander filed an objection to Djuric Defendants’ Motion
to Strike, maintaining, among other things, that under Evid. R 703, “[e]xperts
may testify to opinions based on inadmissible evidence, provided that it is of the
type reasonably relied upon by experts in the field.”
[16] On January 24, 2019, the trial court held a hearing on pending matters,
including Djuric Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and their Motion
to Strike. The following day, the trial court issued an Order granting Djuric
Defendants’ request to strike Dr. Fletcher’s Affidavit 5 and granting summary
judgment in favor of Djuric Defendants. The court began its Order by
observing:
5
The Order does not expressly rule on Djuric Defendants’ request to strike Exhibit 2, the VA records.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CT-366 | September 20, 2019 Page 11 of 22
The issue before this Court cannot be better stated than by the
Restatement (Second) of Torts, Section 283(C):
[A]n automobile driver who suddenly and quite
unexpectedly suffers a heart attack does not become
negligent when he loses control of his car and drives it in a
manner which would otherwise be unreasonable; but one
who knows that he is subject to such attacks may be negligent for
driving at all.
Appellant’s Appendix Vol. II at 10 (emphasis added). The court found that Djuric
Defendants had met their initial burden to demonstrate that Sikorski was
medically qualified to operate a semi-tractor trailer that day and not negligent,
as he possessed a valid Medical Examiner’s Certificate on the day in question
and suddenly suffered a heart attack. The trial court explained that the burden
thus shifted to Alexander to come forward with evidence to show that Sikorski
knew that he was “subject to such attacks and was negligent for driving at all.”
Id. (quoting Section 283(C)). Alexander sought to do so with, primarily, Dr.
Fletcher’s Affidavit, which the trial court struck in its entirety, finding:
None of the documents attached to Fletcher’s Affidavit are
verified or authenticated pursuant to IRE 901 and are not self
authenticated pursuant to IRE 902. He cannot rely upon them in
the manner that they are attached to his Affidavit because they
would be inadmissible into evidence as hearsay. Moreover, the
opinions the Affidavit proffers are so rife with legal conclusions
regarding legal duty, foreseeability, and causation contrary to
IRE 704(3) that they cannot be considered by the Court.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CT-366 | September 20, 2019 Page 12 of 22
Id. at 11. Concluding that “[t]here is no designated evidence that would
establish a genuine issue of material fact that [Sikorski] was ‘ . . . negligent for
driving at all[,]’” the court entered judgment in favor of Djuric Defendants. Id.
Alexander now appeals.
Discussion & Decision
[17] Alexander asserts that the trial court erred when it granted summary judgment
in favor of Djuric Defendants. The purpose of summary judgment is to
terminate litigation about which there can be no factual dispute and which can
be determined as a matter of law. Denson v. Estate of Dillard, 116 N.E.3d 535,
539 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018). The party moving for summary judgment has the
burden of making a prima facie showing that there is no genuine issue of
material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. If the
moving party meets its burden, the burden then shifts to the nonmoving party
whose response must set forth specific facts indicating that there is an issue of
material fact. Id. Any doubts as to any facts or inferences to be drawn from
those facts must be resolved in favor of the nonmoving party. Id. A fact is
“material” if its resolution would affect the outcome of the case, and an issue is
“genuine” if a trier of fact is required to resolve the parties’ differing accounts of
the truth, or if the undisputed material facts support conflicting reasonable
inferences. Williams v. Tharp, 914 N.E.2d 756, 761 (Ind. 2009).
[18] We review a summary judgment ruling de novo. Pelliccia v. Anthem Ins. Cos., 90
N.E.3d 1226, 1230 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018). A trial court’s findings and
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CT-366 | September 20, 2019 Page 13 of 22
conclusions offer insight into the rationale for the court's judgment and facilitate
appellate review but are not binding on this court. Denson, 116 N.E.3d at 539.
Moreover, we are not constrained to the claims and arguments presented to the
trial court, and we may affirm a summary judgment ruling on any theory
supported by the designated evidence. Id. The party that lost in the trial court
has the burden of persuading us that the trial court erred. Id.
[19] Here, Alexander’s claims against the Estate and Djuric are based on Sikorski’s
alleged negligence in driving the truck on the day in question. To prevail on a
negligence claim, a plaintiff must establish three elements: (1) a duty owed to
the plaintiff by the defendant; (2) a breach of that duty by allowing conduct to
fall below the applicable standard of care; and (3) compensable injury
proximately caused by the breach of that duty. Ryan v. TCI
Architects/Eng’rs/Contractors, Inc., 72 N.E.3d 908, 913 (Ind. 2017). A defendant
may obtain summary judgment in a negligence action when the undisputed
facts negate at least one element of the plaintiff’s claim. Denson, 116 N.E.3d at
539. Although the question of breach is usually one for the trier of fact, where
the relevant facts are undisputed and lead to but a single inference or
conclusion, the court as a matter of law may determine whether a breach of
duty has occurred. Id. (citing Cox v. Paul, 828 N.E.2d 907, 911 (Ind. 2005) and
King v. Ne. Sec., Inc., 790 N.E.2d 474, 484 (Ind. 2003)).
[20] It is well settled that “[w]hen considering breach of the duty of care, we begin
with the venerable legal concept of the ‘reasonable person,’” under which an
actor must conform his conduct to that of a reasonable person under like
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CT-366 | September 20, 2019 Page 14 of 22
circumstances. Denson, 116 N.E.3d at 539 (some internal quotations omitted)
(citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 283 (1965)). Section 283(C) of the
Restatement explains that if “the actor is ill or otherwise physically disabled,
the standard of conduct to which he [or she] must conform to avoid being
negligent is that of a reasonable [person] under like disability.” As the trial
court in this case recognized, Comment c to Section 283(C) provides the
following illustration:
[A]n automobile driver who suddenly and quite unexpectedly
suffers a heart attack does not become negligent when he loses
control of his car and drives it in a manner which would
otherwise be unreasonable; but one who knows that he is subject
to such attacks may be negligent for driving at all.
[21] In Denson v. Estate of Dillard this court encountered a similar fact pattern as that
of the present case and applied the above-cited principles. In that case, the
plaintiff, Denson, was a passenger in a vehicle when the driver, Dillard, had a
heart attack and died or lost consciousness, such that the vehicle veered off the
road and crashed into a home. Denson was severely injured and brought suit
against Dillard’s estate, alleging negligence, and the estate moved for summary
judgment, claiming that Dillard’s sudden loss of consciousness or medical
emergency negated the breach element of Denson’s negligence claim. The trial
court entered judgment for the estate, and Denson appealed.
[22] Applying Section 283(C) to those facts, the Denson court found:
Here, the Estate presented prima facie evidence that Dillard
suddenly suffered a heart attack and lost consciousness before
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CT-366 | September 20, 2019 Page 15 of 22
losing control of the car and crashing. Because we determine as
a matter of law that Dillard cannot be found to have acted
unreasonably after he suffered the attack and was rendered
unconscious, the issue becomes whether Dillard acted unreasonably in
deciding to drive in the first place. That is to say, the question is
whether Dillard’s sudden physical incapacity was reasonably foreseeable
such that a reasonably prudent person in his position would not have
risked driving.
116 N.E.2d at 541 (emphasis added). The designated evidence showed that
Dillard had suffered a prior heart attack about six weeks before the accident,
was prescribed home health care and, upon completing recovery goals, was
released without restriction on his driving. His follow-up appointments
indicated he was doing well. Denson urged that Dillard’s prescribed
medication for his heart and his prior heart attack would have put him on
notice that he suffered from coronary artery disease, but the Denson court
rejected that, stating,
[T]his evidence does not equate to knowledge of peril or create
an inference that a reasonable man in Dillard’s position would
have altered his behavior regarding driving. This is especially
true in light of the undisputed lack of driving restrictions or
warnings not to drive by trained medical personnel. Moreover,
there is no evidence that Dillard suffered any symptoms prior to
his decision to drive on November 20, which would have alerted
him of the impending physical incapacity
Id. at 542. Finding that the estate had made a prima facie showing that
Dillard’s sudden physical incapacity was not reasonably foreseeable – and,
therefore, the Estate met its burden as summary judgment movant to
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CT-366 | September 20, 2019 Page 16 of 22
affirmatively negate the element of breach on Denson’s negligence claim – and
finding that the evidence designated by Denson was insufficient to create a
genuine issue of material fact, the Denson court affirmed the trial court’s grant of
summary judgment in favor of the estate. 6
[23] We find that Denson’s reasoning is applicable to the present case. Here, in
seeking summary judgment, Djuric Defendants submitted evidence that (1)
Sikorski possessed a valid Medical Examiner’s Certificate that found him
medically qualified to drive his commercial truck, (2) he suffered a cardiac
event as he was driving for Djuric on May 15, 2015, and (3) he spoke by phone
to his wife about ten minutes prior and at that time he did not indicate he was
experiencing any symptoms of feeling ill or in pain. On this record, we, like the
trial court, find that Djuric Defendants met their initial burden to show the
6
In its decision, the Denson court distinguished the sudden emergency doctrine from sudden medical
emergency:
[T]he sudden emergency doctrine is an application of the general requirement that one’s
conduct conform to the standard of a reasonable person. . . . The doctrine was developed
by the courts to recognize that a person confronted with sudden or unexpected
circumstances calling for immediate action is not expected to exercise the judgment of
one acting under normal circumstances. . . .[U]nlike the sudden emergency doctrine, the
issue with sudden medical emergency is not whether the defendant responded reasonably
to an emergency situation, but whether a reasonable person in the defendant’s position
would have altered his conduct before the medical emergency occurred based on
knowledge of peril.
116 N.E.3d at 540 n.2. The Denson court recognized that in Holcomb v. Miller, 149 Ind. App. 46, 50, 269
N.E.2d 885, 888 (1971) the court “acknowledged the status of sudden loss of consciousness while driving as
an affirmative defense to a negligence action,” but found that Holcomb did not constitute “a formal adoption
of the specific affirmative defense to negligence.” Id. at n.3. The Denson court explained, “We see no need to
formally recognize a specific doctrine or defense and think that the application of general negligence
principles adequately addresses the situation at hand.” Id. at 540. We agree.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CT-366 | September 20, 2019 Page 17 of 22
absence of a genuine issue of material fact as to Sikorski’s alleged negligence.
The burden thus shifted to Alexander to show that a genuine issue of material
fact remained for trial.
[24] In opposition to Djuric Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, Alexander
designated, as is relevant here, the Affidavit of Dr. Fletcher. However, the trial
court struck the Affidavit, finding that “[n]one of the documents attached to
Fletcher’s Affidavit 7 are verified or authenticated . . . and are not self
authenticated” and that Dr. Fletcher “cannot rely upon them in the manner that
they are attached to his Affidavit because they would be inadmissible into
evidence as hearsay” and that the Affidavit was “so rife with legal conclusions
of legal duty, foreseeability, and causation contrary to [Evid. R.] 704(b)” that it
could not be considered by the trial court. Appellant’s Appendix Vol. II at 12.
Alexander asserts on appeal that the trial court erred when it struck Dr.
Fletcher’s twenty-page Affidavit in its entirety.
[25] We review a trial court’s decision on a motion to strike for an abuse of
discretion. Halterman v. Adams Cty. Bd. of Comm’rs, 991 N.E.2d 987, 989 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2013). We will reverse only when the decision is clearly against the
logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Id. Generally, “[i]n order to be
used in a summary judgment proceeding, an affidavit must set forth such facts
as would be admissible in evidence.” Ind. Trial Rule 56(E); Merrill v. Knauf
7
Dr. Fletcher’s Affidavit did not have any attachments or exhibits, although Alexander separately designated
some VA medical records.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CT-366 | September 20, 2019 Page 18 of 22
Fiber Glass GmbH, 771 N.E.2d 1258, 1264 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied.
However, with regard to expert affidavits submitted at the summary judgment
stage, our courts have recognized:
An expert witness must have sufficient facts or data on which to
form an opinion. Burp v. State, 612 N.E.2d 169, 172 (Ind. Ct.
App. 1993). . . . Experts may testify to opinions based on
inadmissible evidence if it is of the type reasonably relied on by
experts in the field. Bunch v. Tiwari, 711 N.E.2d 844, 848 (Ind.
Ct. App. 1999). An expert witness “need not base her opinion on
personal knowledge if the opinion is based on evidence of a type
normally found reliable and customarily relied upon by others in
the witness’s profession or area of expertise.” Id. at 849.
Halterman, 991 N.E.2d at 990-91.
[26] Here, in seeking to strike Dr. Fletcher’s Affidavit, Djuric Defendants asserted,
in part: (1) it was impermissible for Dr. Fletcher to review and rely on
Sikorski’s prior medical records because they contained hearsay and were not
authenticated, and (2) Dr. Fletcher’s statements and opinions regarding
Sikorski’s health, including his sleep apnea, compliance with use of CPAP
machine, hypertension, obesity, and smoking were irrelevant. We agree with
Alexander, however, that Dr. Fletcher, in reaching his opinions, could review
and rely on Sikorski’s medical records and that Dr. Fletcher’s opinions as to the
condition of Sikorski’s health were not irrelevant. Ind. Evid. Rules 702, 703; see
also Halterman, 991 N.E.2d at 990 (upholding trial court’s denial of motion to
strike and stating “an expert’s affidavit may be based on medical records”). We
thus find it was an abuse of discretion to strike the Affidavit in its entirety.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CT-366 | September 20, 2019 Page 19 of 22
[27] We next address the other basis upon which Djuric Defendants sought to strike
the Affidavit, namely that it contained impermissible legal conclusions. Evid.
R. 704(b) permits an expert’s opinions to embrace ultimate issues to be decided
by the trier of fact, but it prohibits opinions as to legal conclusions, such as the
existence of a duty. See, Merrill, 771 N.E.2d at 1264 (expert not permitted to
testify in affidavit that defendant owed plaintiff a duty as such determination is
a legal conclusion that invades province of court). In this case, the trial court
determined that the Affidavit was “so rife with legal conclusions of legal duty,
foreseeability, and causation contrary to [Evid. R.] 704(b)” that it could not be
considered by the trial court. Appellant’s Appendix Vol. II at 12. Alexander urges
on appeal that Dr. Fletcher’s Affidavit did not contain impermissible legal
conclusions. Upon review of the Affidavit, we cannot agree.
[28] We find that the Affidavit contains opinions throughout, and stated in various
forms, that the sudden cardiac arrest and loss of consciousness “was
foreseeable,” “this foreseeable acute cardiac event caused the [] collision,” and
Sikorski “knew or should have known not to operate a commercial vehicle due
to the risk of a significant cardiac event.” Id. at 70-71, 74-75. We agree with
Djuric Defendants that “[w]ith these ‘foreseeability’ opinions, Dr. Fletcher is
attempting to elucidate what duty, if any, was required by Sikorski and/or
Djuric Trucking]”and “directly relate to the legal conclusion of whether
Sikorski had a duty not to drive a commercial vehicle on the date and time of
the accident.” Appellees’ Brief at 29-30. We find these opinions exceeded the
bounds of Evid. Rule 704(b).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CT-366 | September 20, 2019 Page 20 of 22
[29] The question before us thus becomes whether, when excluding the
impermissible legal conclusions in the Affidavit, Alexander met his burden to
show the existence of a genuine issue of material fact for trial. We conclude
that he has not. That is, even if we agree with Alexander (via Dr. Fletcher’s
Affidavit) that, based on Sikorski’s cardiac profile, he was statistically at an
elevated risk for sudden death due to cardiac disease, and he had three out of
thirteen medical conditions that put him at a statistically higher risk of a vehicle
crash – and even if, as Dr. Fletcher opines, Sikorski “was not medically fit to
drive commercially at the time of the crash” and “he was erroneously given a
two-year certification” – none of those matters create a genuine issue of
material fact as to whether Sikorski should have known not to drive on the day
and time in question and breached a duty by driving. Appellant’s Appendix Vol.
II at 75, 78.
[30] Rather, Sikorski held a valid medical examiner’s certificate to drive
commercially through November 3, 2016. There is no evidence that anyone,
including his employer or a medical professional, told Sikorski not to drive. He
had never had a heart attack and he was not prescribed or taking any heart
medication. He did not note any pain or illness when his wife spoke to him
minutes before the accident. He drove a truck for a living and did not have any
specialized medical knowledge. Although Sikorski was not in good health,
suffering from hypertension, sleep apnea and cardiac disease, we find that “this
evidence does not equate to knowledge of peril or create an inference that a
reasonable man in [Sikorski]’s position would have altered his behavior
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CT-366 | September 20, 2019 Page 21 of 22
regarding driving.” Denson, 116 N.E.3 at 542. That is, we do not find that “a
reasonably prudent person in his position would not have risked driving.” Id. at
541. Absent negligence on the part of Sikorski, Djuric may not be found liable
under the respondeat superior doctrine. Based on the record before us, we find
that summary judgment in favor of Djuric Defendants was proper.
[31] Judgment affirmed.
Kirsch, J. and Vaidik, C.J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CT-366 | September 20, 2019 Page 22 of 22