 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Dycoco v. Guernsey Memorial Hospital5/15/2000
Based upon the clear mandate of R.C. 2311.21, we find the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to appellees on the wrongful death claim. Assignment of Error III is denied.
IV.
Appellant claims the trial court erred in determining appellees were not liable under the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. We disagree. In Yeager v. Local Union 20 (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 369, 374, the Supreme Court of Ohio, quoting from Restatement of the Law 2d, Torts (1965) 71, Section 46(1), defined intentional infliction of emotional distress as: ' ne who by extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress to another is subject to liability for such emotional distress, and if bodily harm to the other results from it, for such bodily harm.' The Yeager court at 374-375 went on to quote comment d from said section to describe the standard of "extreme and outrageous": ' *It has not been enough that the defendant has acted with an intent which is tortious or even criminal , or that he has intended to inflict emotional distress, or even that his conduct has been characterized by "malice," or a degree of aggravation which would entitle the plaintiff to punitive damages for another tort. Liability has been found only where the conduct has been so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community. Generally, the case is one in which the recitation of the facts to an average member of the community would arouse his resentment against the actor, and lead him to exclaim, "Outrageous!" 'The liability clearly does not extend to mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions, or other trivialities. *There must still be freedom to express an unflattering opinion, and some safety valve must be left through which irascible tempers may blow off relatively harmless steam. See Magruder, Mental and Emotional Disturbance in the Law of Torts, Harvard Law Review 1033, 1053 (1936). *'
In order to establish a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, a claimant must demonstrate the following: (1) the defendant either intended to cause emotional distress or knew or should have known that the actions taken would result in serious emotional harm to the plaintiff; (2) the defendant's conduct was extreme and outrageous; (3) the defendant's actions proximately caused plaintiff's psychic injury ; and (4) the mental distress suffered by the plaintiff was serious. Piro v. Franklin Twp. (1995), 102 Ohio App.3d 130, 142, citing Davis v. Billow Co. Falls Chapel (1991), 81 Ohio App.3d 203, 206.
Appellant argues the termination of the agreement without notice or due process satisfies the first and second elements: In the instant case all Appellees falsely accused Dr. Dycoco of incompetence based upon reviews by Kronhaus. Kronhaus, was not an actual party to the contract between CAA and Dr. Dycoco, and he also had no business relationship with CompHealth. *Notwithstanding, he contacted Dr. Dycoco, and immediately without providing either a valid peer review process or a due process hearing, fired him. As a result of the termination of the contract with CAA, Dr. Dycoco lost his staff privileges at Guernsey Memorial Hospital, where he had these staff privileges in the Anesthesiology Department since 1985. *Further, Dr. Dycoco was denied these due process privileges pursuant to the Guernsey Memorial Bylaws even after he had specifically been assured of them in the March 26, 1993, Cover Letter from Lowenhagen. Appellant's Brief at 22.
The extreme and outrageous conduct argued su
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|