Opinion ID: 2171195
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Failure to Consider Affidavits

Text: The plaintiff next contends that in ruling upon the defendants' motions for summary judgment, the trial court should have considered the affidavits of his physician expert witnesses filed on May 12, 1989, as supplemental responses to prior interrogatories and requests for production. He argues that the affidavits were timely because the trial court scheduled a second, subsequent hearing on the merits of the motions for summary judgment, and because under T.R. 56(C) the trial court was bound to consider filed answers to interrogatories in determining motions for summary judgment. At the time of the hearing, T.R. 56(C) required that opposing affidavits be filed prior to the day of hearing. This clearly does not authorize the filing of such affidavits after the hearing begins even if it is not concluded until a subsequent date. When the trial court decision was made, T.R. 56(E) specified in pertinent part: The court may permit affidavits to be supplemented or opposed by depositions, answers to interrogatories, further affidavits, or, within the discretion of the judge, testimony of witnesses. The issue is therefore whether the trial court abused its discretion in declining to permit the affidavits, even as supplemental discovery responses, to be considered for purposes of summary judgment. This is an extremely close question. Ind. Trial Rule 8(F) unequivocally mandates that all pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice, lead to disposition on the merits, and avoid litigation of procedural points. The plaintiff had promptly opposed the motions for summary judgment with responses indicating that expert medical witnesses would testify contrary to the opinion of the medical review panel. The content of such expected testimony was fully disclosed. While the subsequent affidavits of these experts were not timely filed, it may have been preferable for the trial court to have granted the plaintiff's request that they be considered. However, because the rule delegates such decision to the discretion of the trial court, and because there were ample opportunities for the plaintiff to have timely filed the affidavits, we decline to reverse for abuse of discretion.