Jury rules for Doctor in Medical Malpractice Suit
Table of Contents
Case Background
John and Andrea Ferguson filed a medical negligence lawsuit against Dr. Sridhar Banuru, a cardiologist at Deaconess Hospital in Evansville, Indiana. The case took place from medical care provided to John Ferguson on February 18, 2018. According to the complaint, Dr. Banuru examined Ferguson for symptoms of cardiovascular distress but failed to perform further diagnostic procedures, including an exercise stress test or cardiac catheterization. Six days later, Ferguson suffered a myocardial infarction that caused severe complications.
The Fergusons claimed Dr. Banuru’s inaction deprived John of a timely diagnosis that could have prevented the heart attack. They also alleged that the doctor’s failure to use reasonable medical judgment resulted in lasting injury, financial loss, and emotional harm. The couple sought damages for medical expenses, lost income, pain, and the loss of companionship.
Cause
The cause of action centered on medical negligence. The Plaintiffs alleged that Dr. Banuru failed to meet the accepted standard of care in cardiology during his evaluation and treatment. They argued that a reasonably careful physician would have recognized signs of serious coronary artery disease and admitted Ferguson for testing. The failure to order appropriate diagnostic procedures, according to the complaint, directly led to the heart attack that followed within a week of the hospital visit.
Injury
John Ferguson’s injuries were extensive. The heart attack left him with permanent cardiac damage and ongoing health issues. He underwent additional medical treatment and continued to face physical pain, fatigue, and emotional distress. The couple described the experience as life-altering. Andrea Ferguson suffered the loss of her husband’s companionship, support, and household services. Together, they said the ordeal placed immense emotional and financial strain on their family.
Damages Sought
The Fergusons requested compensation to cover past and future medical bills, lost wages, and diminished quality of life. They also sought damages for emotional suffering and Andrea’s loss of consortium. Their attorneys emphasized that Ferguson’s condition could have been avoided with timely medical intervention.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiffs: John Ferguson | Andrea Ferguson
· Counsel for Plaintiffs: Daniel Tysen Smith | Kris Mullins
Defendant: Sridhar Banuru
· Counsel for Defendant: Clay A. Edwards | Morgan N. Blind
· Experts for Defendant: William Boden | William L. Holman | Mark Daniel Fisch | Andrew Fouts | Jeffrey W. Gray | Peter Nechay
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
The Plaintiffs’ attorney argued that Dr. Banuru failed to exercise reasonable care during Ferguson’s evaluation. Counsel pointed to expert affidavits showing that Ferguson presented with clear cardiac risk factors and unstable symptoms. Both experts testified that a competent cardiologist would have ordered stress testing or catheterization to confirm coronary blockage.
The defense countered that Dr. Banuru acted within accepted medical judgment and followed appropriate diagnostic protocols based on the symptoms presented at the time. Defense counsel reminded jurors that medicine is not an exact science and that cardiologists are allowed discretion in treatment decisions. They also emphasized that a medical review panel had found no deviation from the standard of care.
Claims
Negligence Claim
The Fergusons alleged that Dr. Banuru’s actions fell below the professional standard required of cardiologists. They contended that he failed to admit John Ferguson for further testing despite symptoms that indicated high cardiac risk. Their experts, Dr. Rinder and Dr. Bokhari, testified that earlier diagnosis through catheterization would have identified coronary blockage and prevented the heart attack.
Dr. Rinder stated that the Defendant failed to use reasonable medical judgment by discharging Ferguson without a complete evaluation. He explained that the medical record showed Ferguson’s condition required immediate cardiac intervention. Dr. Bokhari, a Columbia University cardiologist, agreed. He said Ferguson’s presentation was consistent with unstable angina and that the standard of care required inpatient monitoring and testing.
Loss of Consortium Claim
Andrea Ferguson’s separate claim focused on the loss of her husband’s services, companionship, and emotional support. She described how the incident affected their marriage and family life, leaving them with lasting hardship.
Defense
Denial of Negligence
Dr. Banuru denied all allegations of negligence. His attorneys stated that he used appropriate care and judgment based on the clinical information available on February 18, 2018. They argued that Ferguson’s later heart attack was an unforeseeable medical event not caused by the doctor’s treatment.
Reliance on Medical Review Panel
The defense relied heavily on the findings of a state-appointed medical review panel. The panel unanimously concluded that Dr. Banuru did not deviate from the standard of care. The defense argued that this opinion carried significant weight and demonstrated that the Plaintiffs’ claims lacked merit.
Other Defenses
Dr. Banuru also raised multiple affirmative defenses, including the statute of limitations and contributory negligence. His attorneys argued that any damages should be reduced if the Fergusons failed to mitigate their losses or if other factors contributed to the injury. They also contended that any compensation should be adjusted for collateral sources under Indiana law.
Jury Verdict
The jury returned a verdict in favor of the Defendant, Dr. Sridhar Banuru, M.D., which was announced in open Court. The Court subsequently entered a Final Judgment on August 25, 2025, ruling in favor of Dr. Banuru and against Plaintiffs John and Andrea Ferguson, thereby adjudicating all claims.