 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bradshaw v. Mansfield Correctional Institution9/17/2004
ure the same shoulder with his own ill-advised activities. If Mr. Bradshaw continues to aggravate his old injury with such activities as sliding into a base while playing softball, lifting weights and doing push-ups he will continue to experience pain. Medically, there is nothing further that can be done for his shoulder."
{ } In further support of the motion for summary judgment, defendant submitted the affidavit of Inder Gujral, M.D., another medical professional in defendant's employ. Dr. Gujral's affidavit provides in relevant part:
{ } " *
{ } "2. I am familiar with inmate Dennis J. Bradshaw, #A380584, and his medical history.
{ } " *
{ } "6. During his incarceration with the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, Mr. Bradshaw has been treated for his pre-existing shoulder problems. This treatment has been appropriate and within the generally accepted standard of care in the medical profession for the treatment of such shoulder problems."
{ } As stated above, plaintiff has not responded to defendant's motion for summary judgment. Although plaintiff filed a motion on August 11, 2004, to introduce exhibits consisting of informal complaints, grievances, and kites, he has not submitted any expert witness reports to support his allegations nor has he identified any expert witnesses. At best, plaintiff's exhibits evidence his continued complaints about his injury and his care; the exhibits do not document a breach of the standard of care as required under Bruni, supra.
{ } The Tenth District Court of Appeals has stated:
{ } "The moving party bears the initial responsibility of informing the trial court of the basis for the motion, and identifying those portions of the record that demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of fact on a material element of one or more of the nonmoving party's claims for relief. Dresher v. Burt (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 280, 292. If the moving party satisfies this initial burden by presenting or identifying appropriate Civ.R. 56(C) evidence, the nonmoving party must then present similarly appropriate evidence to rebut the motion with a showing that a genuine issue of material fact must be preserved for trial. Norris v. Ohio Standard Oil Co. (1982), 70 Ohio St.2d 1,2. The nonmoving party does not need to try the case at this juncture, but its burden is to produce more than a scintilla of evidence in support of its claims. McBroom v. Columbia Gas of Ohio, Inc. (June 28, 2001), Franklin App. No. 00AP-1110." Nu-Trend Homes, Inc., et al. v. Law Offices of DeLibera, Lyons & Bibbo, et al., Franklin App. No. 01AP-1137, 2003-Ohio-1663.
{ } In light of the standard of review, the court finds that the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn from the undisputed evidence set forth above is that defendant was not negligent in the care and treatment of plaintiff. Consequently, there are no genuine issues of material fact and defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
{ } Defendant's motion for summary judgment shall be granted and judgment shall be rendered in favor of defendant.
JUDGMENT ENTRY INSTITUTION
Based upon the evidence and for the reasons set forth in the decision filed concurrently herewith, defendant's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. Judgment is rendered in favor of defendant. Court costs are assessed against plaintiff. The clerk shall serve upon all parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal.
FRED J. SHOEMAKER Judge
|