Court Opinion

ID: 9860647
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 23:28:40.972778+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:26:17.988900
License: Public Domain

DICKSON, Justice,
dissenting.
Trial Rule 56(E) includes the following explicit requirement:
* * * When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in this rule, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleading, but his response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. If he does not so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against him. * * *
A party opposing summary judgment is "obliged to disgorge sufficient evidence" to show the existence of a genuine triable issue. Shideler v. Dwyer (1981), 275 Ind. 270, 417 N.E.2d 281; Pon American World Airways, Inc. v. Local Readers Service, Inc. (1968), 143 Ind.App. 370, 240 N.E. 2d 552. The party opposing summary judgment must "come forth with specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Criss v. Bitzegaio (1981), Ind., 420 N.E2d 1221; Whipple v. Dickey (1980), Ind.App., 401 N.E.2d 787.
Pursuant to Ind.Code § 16-9.5-9-9, the expert opinion reached by the Medical Review Panel was presented in support of defendant's motion for summary judgment as proof that "[the evidence does not support the conclusion that defendant failed to meet the applicable standard of care as charged in the initial complaint." Record at 25. I am unable to agree with the majority that plaintiff's response adequately set forth specific facts to show a genuine issue for trial.
I would affirm the trial court's entry of summary judgment.