 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Crow v. Estate of Sandra Sue Parker6/29/1999
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Civil appeal from Common Pleas Court JUDGMENT: Judgment affirmed
This appeal arises out of a decision of the Court of Common Pleas of Allen County granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee, Critikon, Inc. ("Critikon"), for the failure of Plaintiff-Appellants, Herman C. Crow and Kay Crow, to establish a claim for product liability. For the reasons expressed in the following opinion, we affirm the decision of the trial court.
The relevant facts are as follows:
"On the morning of June 7, 1991, Herman Crow was transported by ambulance to Lima Memorial Hospital complaining of chest pains. Upon Crow's arrival, emergency room nurse, Sandra Parker, attempted to take the patient's blood pressure by placing an automatic blood pressure cuff on Crow's right arm between his shoulder and elbow. Although this is a relatively routine, painless procedure, Crow began to experience severe pain in his right arm within seconds, apparently because the cuff continued to inflate without regulating itself down to a normal pressure. After becoming aware of Crow's discomfort, Nurse Parker placed the cuff on the patient's thigh. The problem with the cuff persisted and Crow's blood pressure was eventually taken with a manual apparatus."
Subsequent to these events, Crow underwent treatment for his heart condition. While still a patient at Lima Memorial, he noticed pain and swelling in his right arm. The injury led to a significant decrease in Crow's ability to move the thumb and first two fingers on his right hand; he also suffered from a perpetual feeling of numbness in the same fingers. Herman Crow has endured extensive physical therapy and ultimately had surgery on the arm in 1992 in an attempt to correct the problem. Although the movement in his fingers has improved, the numbing sensation continues.
On June 7, 1995, Crow and his wife, Kay, filed a complaint against Lima Memorial Hospital and the Estate of Sandra Parker. (Nurse Parker passed away shortly after Appellant's injury occurred.) The plaintiffs also named Critikon as a defendant in the action, alleging negligent design and/or manufacture of the automatic blood pressure cuff and breach of an implied warranty. On December 11, 1998, Critikon filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case on the alleged claims. On January 29,1999, the trial court rendered summary judgment in favor of Critikon. Since the court stated, in accordance with Civ.R. 54(B), that there was no just cause for delay as to this issue, the Crows perfected the instant appeal, asserting two assignments of error which we have chosen to discuss in conjunction.
Assignment of Error I
Defendant/Appellee Critikon was not entitled to a summary judgment as a matter of law because Appellants Crow established their prima facie case and if not there was at least a genuine issue of material facts on which reasonable minds could differ.
Assignment of Error II
The court abused its discretion in granting Defendant/Appellee Critikon's renewal of its Motion for Summary Judgment.
In reviewing the propriety of a summary judgment, an appellate court reviews the issue under the same standard as the trial court. Lorain Natl. Bank v. Saratoga Apts. (1989), 61 Ohio App.3d 127, 129. It is axiomatic that a trial court is without the authority to grant summary judgment unless it can be demonstrated that:
"(1) No genuine issue as to any material fact remains to be litigated; (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law
Page 1 2 3 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|