 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Eannottie v. Carriage Inn of Steubenville9/29/2003
JUDGMENT: Affirmed in Part, Reversed in Part and Remanded.
. This matter comes for consideration upon the record in the trial court, the parties' briefs, and their oral arguments before this court. Appellant, Helen Eannottie appeals the decision of the Jefferson County Court of Common Pleas granting summary judgment in favor of Appellee, Trinity Health System. This case involves the discovery of a sponge placed and then left inside Eannottie's wound sometime after she had surgery to remove a sarcoma. The issues we must resolve are: (1) whether the possibility that several parties could have placed and then left the sponge in the wound created a genuine issue of material fact; (2) whether Eannotties was required to prove with expert testimony who placed and then left the sponge to survive summary judgment; (3) whether expert testimony was required to prove with reasonable medical certainty that Trinity was responsible for placing and leaving the sponge to survive summary judgment; and, 4) whether expert medical testimony was necessary to assist the jury in making their decision.
. Because almost all cases involving foreign objects left inside a patient after medical treatment are within the understanding of the jury, no expert testimony was required in this case. Moreover, Eannottie was not required to prove who placed the sponge inside her wound since that clearly would be a question for the trier of fact. Because several genuine issues of material fact remain undecided in this case, namely who left the sponge in Eannottie's wound, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed in part, reversed in part and this cause is remanded for further proceedings.
Facts
. On July 17, 1997, Dr. Mark Goodman performed surgery to remove a sarcoma. Two additional surgeries followed. On August 12, 1997, Eannottie was discharged to the Carriage Inn, a rehabilitation center, where she stayed until October 6, 1997. Eannottie was discharged to her home where she began receiving wound care from Trinity, a company which provides in-home nursing. Eannottie returned to Dr. Goodman for office visits five times after she had been discharged to her home.
. At all times, Eannottie had a wound which was being cared for by all of the above mentioned parties. Despite all the care given to Eannottie's wound, it remained open and continued to drain. Consequently, Eannottie went to Dr. Howard Eddington, a physician at the Wound Healing Clinic, for additional treatment. On April 28, 1998, while performing a debridement surgery upon her wound Dr. Howard discovered a 4" by 4" sponge.
. On October 12, 1999, Eannottie filed a complaint sounding in professional negligence against Trinity based upon a negligently placed foreign object found inside her surgical wound. After discovery, Trinity filed a motion for summary judgment claiming: 1) Eannottie had failed to provide expert testimony that Trinity, beyond a reasonable degree of medical probability, fell below the appropriate standard of care in treating Eannottie; 2) Eannottie failed to state a specific standard of care that Trinity allegedly fell below; and, 3) summary judgment was proper because experts for each party agreed that neither could identify when the sponge was placed inside Eannottie or who placed it there. After reviewing the evidence, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Trinity.
. Eannottie has presented this court with five assignments of error. For the sake of clarity, these assignments will not be addressed in the order they were presented. Rather, we will first address the assignments of error which deal with the trial court's evidentiary rulings made prior to it
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|