 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Guardianship of Matyaszek12/29/2004
Therefore, we find that the failure to disclose payment for the property damage (and possibly medical bills, though the bills were included in the file) may provide a basis to vacate the judgment.
B. The Manner in which the Settlement was Tendered to Appellant's Father
{ } This Court is also very disturbed by the manner in which the settlement was tendered on appellant's behalf. The Magistrate's Order required that "the estate of said minor in the possession of Ford Motor Co. in the sum of $10,000.00 dollars be deposited in the name of Adam Matyaszek with Bank One." The order further states that " one of said funds, in whole or in part shall be released by the depository until such time as said minor attained the age of majority."
{ } Instead of making out the check in appellant's name with restrictive endorsements as required by the Magistrate's order, appellee made the check payable to appellant's father. This permitted appellant's father to disburse the funds in any manner he wished.
{ } Likewise, appellant's father also failed to comply with the Magistrate's order to deposit the settlement in Bank One in appellant's name and restrict the release of the settlement to appellant alone when he reached the age of majority.There is nothing in the docket to indicate that the deposit was ever made. Appellant's total settlement is unaccounted for. One fact is certain, though - appellant has received none of it. Neither party is faultless with regard to the manner in which the settlement was tendered. This Court considers this a serious procedural irregularity extremely prejudicial to appellant.
C. Failure to Disclose Dr. McLaughlin's letter
{ } Appellant claims that appellee failed to provide Dr. McLauglin's letter to the Magistrate with the intent to deceive him regarding appellant's current medical condition. Appellant argues that the letter would have alerted the Magistrate that appellant's injuries were far more serious than he was led to believe and would have prompted him to appoint a guardian ad litem.
{ } Magistrate Wertz claimed that it was his usual procedure to approve a settlement without representation of the minor only when the injury was worth only between $1,500.00 and $3,000.00 and was really not even a soft tissue injury.He claimed, too, that it was his practice to satisfy himself that the infant had, in fact, recovered from his injuries.
{ } The Magistrate also testified that Dr. McLaughlin's letter would have been of particular interest to him. He stated that he "would have had some concern probably to appoint a guardian ad litem to make sure the appropriate interests were represented" if this information and the problems in the Matyaszek household would have been presented to him.
{ } Appellee argues that the Magistrate's practice was to only request the discharge summary in cases of injury to an infant and that this discharge was in fact presented to him. Appellee also argues that Dr. McLauglin's letter is not material because it does not provide any information which was not provided by Dr. Hlavin, appellant's treating physician at the hospital. Consequently, the Magistrate was fully apprised of appellant's current medical condition by (1) Dr. Hlavin's discharge summary, (2) appellant's father's disclosures regarding appellant's current condition and; (3) the Magistrate's own observations of appellant at the hearing.
{ } Former Sup.R. 37 states that the Magistrate may obtain the current medical condition of appellant from his examining physician and current Sup.R. 68 requires him to obtain it. These superintendence rules make it clear that the Magistrate appropriat
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|