The Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled in favor of a dentist and his practice, Geist Oral & Facial Surgery, P.C., in a medical malpractice case brought by a patient who suffered complications during a wisdom tooth extraction. The court's decision, filed on July 31, 2026, affects patients and medical professionals alike by emphasizing the importance of properly verified evidence in malpractice claims.
Randy Perkins, the patient in this case, underwent a routine procedure in January 2020 that turned serious when he experienced significant bleeding, requiring emergency medical services to transport him to a hospital. Following the incident, Perkins filed a lawsuit against Dr. Christopher Burns and Geist Oral & Facial Surgery, claiming he sustained lasting damage due to their negligence. However, the court found that Perkins did not provide adequate evidence to support his claims.
The case began when Perkins filed a complaint with the Indiana Department of Insurance, which led to a Medical Review Panel's unanimous conclusion that Dr. Burns did not deviate from the standard of care during the procedure. Perkins then pursued a negligence lawsuit, asserting he experienced permanent impairment in his mouth area, including loss of sensation and pain.
In response to the lawsuit, the defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that Perkins had not provided any supportive evidence to contradict the Medical Review Panel's findings. Perkins attempted to counter this with expert opinions, but the trial court struck these opinions because they were not properly verified. As a result, the trial court ruled in favor of the defendants, granting their summary judgment motion.
Perkins appealed the decision, raising several issues, including whether the trial court abused its discretion by striking an affidavit from a friend who accompanied him to the procedure and whether it erred by striking his unverified expert opinions. The court ultimately affirmed the trial court's decision.
Judge May, who authored the opinion, stated, "At the summary judgment stage, Perkins presented no admissible evidence to the Court to contradict the unanimous medical review panel opinion." The ruling highlights the significance of submitting verified evidence in medical malpractice cases, particularly when the opposing party has already provided a strong defense.
The court also addressed Perkins's motion for post-judgment relief, which sought to introduce newly verified expert opinions after the summary judgment had been granted. The trial court denied this motion, explaining that Perkins had failed to provide a valid reason for not submitting the expert opinions in the required format earlier. The court noted that Perkins's strategic decision to withhold properly verified evidence did not warrant relief.
This ruling underscores the importance of following procedural rules in legal cases, especially in medical malpractice claims. Patients seeking to hold medical professionals accountable must ensure their evidence meets the necessary legal standards. The court's decision also reinforces the role of Medical Review Panels in evaluating claims of medical negligence, as their findings carry significant weight in court.
Looking ahead, this ruling may impact future medical malpractice cases in Indiana, as it sets a precedent for the necessity of verified evidence. Patients and their legal representatives must be diligent in preparing their cases and ensuring that all evidence is properly documented and presented. Failure to do so could result in the dismissal of legitimate claims, as seen in Perkins's case.
As of now, it is unclear whether Perkins will seek further appeals or if there are related cases pending. The court's ruling serves as a reminder of the complexities involved in medical malpractice litigation and the critical importance of adhering to legal standards.