 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Robinson v. Health Midwest Development Group3/6/2001
fact finder could find such a duty. We agree.
To be entitled to summary judgment under Rule 74.04, the respondent, as the movant, was required to show that: (1) there was no genuine dispute as to the material facts on which it relied for summary judgment; and (2) on these undisputed facts, it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Robinson v. State Highway & Transp. Comm'n, 24 S.W.3d 67, 74 (Mo. App. 2000) (citing Rule 74.04; ITT Commercial Fin. Corp., 854 S.W.2d at 380-81).
If the movant is a defending party, as here, a prima facie case for summary judgment may be established by one or more of the following means: (1) showing undisputed facts that negate any one of the [claimant's] required proof elements; (2) showing that the [claimant], after an adequate period of discovery, not produced and would not be able to produce evidence sufficient to allow the trier of fact to find the existence of any one of the [claimant's] required proof elements; or (3) showing that there is no genuine dispute as to the existence of each of the facts necessary to support an affirmative defense properly pleaded by the movant. 'Regardless of which of these three means is employed by the "defending party," each establishes a right to judgment as a matter of law.' Id. (citations omitted).
In her petition, the appellant alleged that the respondent was negligent in the following respects:
10. At the time that Verlea R. Schmidt presented herself to the Defendant's hospital, the Defendant's employees and/or servants and/or agents and/or others with whom they were acting in concert failed to exercise that degree of care in the providing of medical care that a health care provider and/or hospital would ordinarily use under the same or similar circumstances, and the Defendant, through the actions of its employees and/or servants and/or agents and/or others with whom they were acting in concert, was negligent in the medical treatment provided or in failing to provide appropriate medical care including, but not limited, to the following particulars:
a. Defendant carelessly and negligently failed to obtain proper and necessary information from Verlea Schmidt prior to medical care being rendered to her;
b. Defendant carelessly and negligently provided medication and other care without proper assessment of her current physical condition;
c. Defendant carelessly and negligently failed to maintain proper supervision and/or monitoring of Verlea R. Schmidt after medical care was rendered to her to ascertain her condition;
d. Defendant carelessly and negligently failed to maintain proper supervision and/or monitoring of Verlea R. Schmidt after she received medical treatment and failed to inform Verlea Schmidt that she was not to operate a motor vehicle after leaving Defendant's facility when it knew or should have known that she was a hazard to herself and others, including this Plaintiff;
e. Defendant carelessly and negligently failed to maintain proper supervision and/or monitoring of Verlea R. Schmidt after she received treatment and take appropriate steps to avoid her from leaving the hospital and be in a position to operate a automobile when it knew or should have known that she was a hazard to herself and others, including this Plaintiff;
f. Defendant carelessly and negligently failed to maintain proper supervision and/or monitoring and to provide further treatment to Verlea R. Schmidt when it knew or should have known that she could have been a hazard to herself and others, including this Plaintiff without such further care and treatment;
g. Defendant carelessly and negligently fa
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Missouri Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|