Professional Negligence Law Reporter

An Indiana appellate court held the fact that the son of a judge overseeing a suit against a hospital operator was employed by a law firm representing the defendant did not warrant the judge’s recusal.

Martha Espinoza suffered a broken tibia after tripping and falling on overlapping floor mats at St. Mary Medical Center. She sued the facility, and the trial court granted judgment on the evidence on the basis that the plaintiff had failed to prove the defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of the alleged hazard. The plaintiff brought a motion to correct errors, repeating her negligence claim and arguing that the trial judge should have recused himself because his son worked for the law firm that was representing the defendant. The trial court rejected the plaintiff’s motion in full and ruled that disqualification was unwarranted.

Affirming, the appellate court found that under the Indiana Judicial Conduct Rules and case law, recusal may be required if an objective person, knowledgeable of all the circumstances, would have a rational basis for doubting the judge’s impartiality. Here, the court said, there is no basis to conclude that bias affected the trial judge’s decision. The court reasoned that the judge’s son played no role in the case and did not have an economic interest in the matter. Moreover, the son’s employment was a matter of public record, and this fact was not concealed from the plaintiff.

Consequently, the court concluded there was no rational basis for an objective observer to doubt the judge’s impartiality and that the judge’s refusal to recuse was not an abuse of discretion.

Citation: Espinoza v. St. Mary Med. Ctr., Inc., 233 N.E.3d 1009 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024).