 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Dycoco v. Guernsey Memorial Hospital5/15/2000
b judice was merely an exercise of the option for termination under the agreement. See, Independent Contractor Agreement at Articles 5 and 8. If one cries out "extreme and outrageous" conduct, one must establish the conduct went beyond all possible bounds of decency and was utterly intolerable in a civilized community. Such was never presented in this case. Appellant merely relied on the acts of appellees without presenting any substantiated facts or evidence. Upon review, we find appellees exercised an option under the agreement and as a result, the agreement with Dr. Dycoco was terminated as well as his staff privileges with Hospital. These results were included in and anticipated by the express language in the agreement. The trial court did not err in finding in favor of appellees on the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. Assignment of Error IV is denied.
V, VI
Appellant claims the trial court erred in determining appellees were not liable under the claims for wrongful death and funeral expenses. We disagree.
As we found in Dycoco I, and have also found herein no causes of action for breach of contract, tortious interference with a business relationship, defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress, no wrongful act was committed as required by R.C. 2125.01(A)(1). Therefore, the claims for wrongful death and funeral expenses do not have any merit. Upon review, we find the trial court did not err in finding in favor of appellees on these claims. Assignments of Error V and VI are denied.
VII.
Appellant claims the trial court erred in not granting her motion for further discovery in the claim against Dr. Stoner. We disagree. Appellant properly points out that under the standard for a motion for summary judgment, all discovery should be complete. Appellant argues because of a stay order regarding the claims against Dr. Stoner, implemented by the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County, Ohio in a case before it concerning the liquidation of the PIE Mutual Insurance Company of which Dr. Stoner was an insured, appellant was precluded from fully discovering the claims against Dr. Stoner.
The granting or denying of a motion involving discovery is within the sound discretion of the trial court. Manofskey v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. (1990), 69 Ohio App.3d 663. In order to find an abuse of that discretion, we must determine the trial court's decision was unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable and not merely an error of law or judgment. Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217. By judgment entry filed March 16, 1999, the trial court denied the request for further discovery, finding as follows:
This case comes before the Court for non-oral hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendant Brady B. Stoner, M.D. and Motion of Plaintiff for the Vacating of the Non-Oral Hearing Date of March 11, 1999 and to Stay the Date for Ruling Upon Defendant's, Brady Stoner, M.D., Motion for Summary Judgment Until After Remand from the Court of Appeals and then the Completion of Discovery.
The Court finds that the instant case was filed December 13, 1994 and has been, therefore, on-going for in excess of four years. The Court further finds that the issues presented by Defendant, Brady Stoner, M.D., are substantially similar to those issues now on appeal. The Court concludes that in the interests of judicial economy, Plaintiff's Motion for Stay must be and hereby is, DENIED.
During the course of the case, appellant never requested leave from the trial court to permit discovery of Dr. Stoner until the thirteenth hour. We concur with the trial court that the nexus of the case revo
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.
|
|