 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Beshears v. Stephens12/23/2004
AFFIRMING
Hazel Beshears appeals from a summary judgment entered by the Pulaski Circuit Court dismissing her claim of medical negligence against Dr. Scott M. Stephens. We affirm.
On April 30, 2000, Beshears went to the Lake Cumberland Regional Hospital complaining of abdominal pain and vomiting. She was seen by an emergency room physician who gave her medication and discharged her. Over the next few weeks, Beshears continued to experience the same symptoms. During the evening hours of May 21 and the early morning hours of May 22, her symptoms became so severe that she went back to the hospital. Another emergency room physician examined Beshears and admitted her. Beshears was then referred to Dr. Stephens.
Dr. Stephens saw Beshears the same day. According to Beshears, Dr. Stephens did not pursue her condition aggressively. She stated that he asked if she wanted to go home, and that she told him that her condition had grown intolerable and something needed to be done. According to Beshears, Dr. Stephens came back the next morning, May 23, 2000, and agreed to have a CAT scan series done. She claimed that Dr. Stephens ordered the CAT scan series only after her daughters threatened to take her to another hospital.
The CAT scan results showed that Beshears had a ruptured appendix. When Dr. Stephens learned of the results, Dr. Keith Sinclair, a surgeon, was notified. Following surgery, Beshears was released from the hospital with no apparent postoperative complications.
On April 30, 2001, Beshears filed a civil complaint in the Pulaski Circuit Court against Dr. Stephens, the hospital, the emergency room physicians, and others. On March 4, 2002, approximately ten months after the complaint was filed, the circuit court entered an order concerning the identification of expert witnesses. Among other things, the order directed Beshears to identify every expert witness she might use at trial and to state the subject matter of the experts' expected testimony and a summary of the grounds for each such opinion. On March 11, 2002, the court entered an order that included a provision stating that Beshears had 120 days in which to serve notice upon the defendants of her expert witnesses and to furnish Rule 26 compliance. The order also set the case for trial by jury for February 24, 2003.
On September 11, 2002, the court entered an order that directed Beshears to identify the name of every expert witness that she might call to testify at trial and to state the subject matter upon which the experts were expected to testify and to provide a summary for the grounds of each such opinion. The order directed that Beshears comply within 45 days. Further, the order stated that "there must be literal compliance with the requirements of C.R. 26.02(4)(a)(i)." The order also stated that a failure to comply with the civil rule could result in the suppression of expert witness testimony. A few days later, on September 20, 2002, the court entered an order that included a provision that stated Beshears must identify every expert witness to be called at trial and to state the subject matter of their testimony and provide a summary of the grounds for each such opinion within 60 days of that date. The order noted that the case was still set for trial for February 24, 2003. On January 24, 2003, the court entered an order continuing the trial of the case until September 22, 2003. The order stated that " ll previous orders regarding disclosures, instructions, and motions prior to trial are hereby extended."
On April 3, 2003, the attorney for the emergency room physicians sent a letter addressed to all counsel notifying them that his clients' insurance carr
Page 1 2 3 4 Kentucky Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|