 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Herman v. Metrohealth Medical Center3/13/2003
Date of Announcement of Decision: MARCH 13, 2003
Judgment: Affirmed
. Plaintiff-appellant Richard T. Herman, Administrator of the Estate of Sarah Ruiz, deceased ("plaintiff") appeals from the trial court's denial of his motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Civ.R. 60(B). For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
. Plaintiff commenced this medical malpractice action on April 19, 2001 contending that defendants' negligence in caring for, prescribing medications for, and treating Sarah Ruiz in October and November 1999 caused and/or contributed to her death. On June 14, 2001, the trial court held a case management conference and established various filing dates and deadlines. As part of that schedule, plaintiff's expert report was due September 7, 2001; the discovery cut-off was December 28, 2001; and dispositive motions were to be filed by January 21, 2002.
. On December 14, 2001, defendants-appellees Metrohealth Medical Center and Andrew Sakiewicz, M.D. ("defendants") filed their motion for summary judgment asserting that plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of medical negligence by not producing any expert testimony. (R. 11). Plaintiff neglected to oppose defendants' motion and on February 22, 2002, the trial court granted it.
. On March 6, 2002, plaintiff moved for relief from judgment under Civ.R. 60(B)(1). At the same time, plaintiff sought leave to respond to defendants' motion for summary judgment and for an extension of time to complete discovery. In support of both motions, plaintiff submitted a letter dated February 27, 2002, authored by Lori A. Rusterholtz, M.D., F.A.C.C. The subject of Dr. Rusterholtz's correspondence is "Review of Medical Records, Sarah Ruiz." Therein, she states:
. "The area of concern is whether her cardiologist * appropriately handled an elevated PTT. * The appropriate handling of such an elevated lab draw would have been to hold and decrease the dose of heparin and obtain follow-up laboratory evaluation the next day. From the available medical records it is not clear whether this was done.
. "If the patient had a marked elevation of the PTT and no change was made in her anticoagulation this is a clear deviation from accepted standards of care. Such over anticoagulation clearly put her at increased risk for spontaneous or recurrent bleeding and probably initiated the chain of events that led to her death. Additional laboratory data regarding the level of Mrs. Ruiz anticoagulation during the time period from 10/19 through 10/25, which was not part of the record, would be important in further understanding what occurred in this case." (R. 18 and 19, Exhibits A thereto).
. On August 21, 2002, the trial court denied plaintiff's motion for relief from judgment finding that plaintiff failed to establish excusable neglect and failed to set forth evidence of a meritorious claim. From this ruling, plaintiff appeals assigning these related errors for our review:
. "I. The trial court erred to the prejudice of plaintiff-appellant in overruling his motion for relief from judgment.
. "II. The trial court abused its discretion in failing to grant plaintiff-appellant's motion for relief from summary judgment."
. We begin by noting the decision whether to grant a Civ.R. 60(B) motion rests within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion. Griffey v. Rajan (1987), 33 Ohio St.3d 75. An abuse of discretion connotes more than a mere error of law or judgment; rather, it implies that the trial court's attitude was unreasonable, arbitrary, or
Page 1 2 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|