 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Casterline v. Khoury12/5/2003
. Appellant, Earl S. Casterline ("Casterline"), appeals from the decision of the Trumbull County Common Pleas Court, which granted summary judgment in favor of appellee, Dr. Ronald Khoury, on Casterline's medical malpractice claim. We reverse.
. On November 26, 1996, Dr. Khoury performed surgery on Casterline to repair a ventral hernia. Following surgery, Casterline's vocal cords were paralyzed. This necessitated Casterline's use of a tracheostomy.
. Casterline filed a medical malpractice action against Dr. Khoury and Trumbull Memorial Hospital. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the hospital. Casterline dismissed his action against Dr. Khoury without prejudice and prosecuted an appeal to this court. We affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the hospital in Casterline v. Trumbull Memorial Hosp., Trumbull App. No. 2000-T-0120, 2001-Ohio-8727.
. Casterline then re-filed his action against Dr. Khoury. Casterline alleged that his vocal cords were injured as a result of a previous neck surgery. Casterline alleged that Dr. Khoury failed to conduct a proper preoperative evaluation of Casterline's vocal cords and that, had he done so, he would have discovered the vocal cord damage. Casterline's expert, Dr. John Bogdasarian, opined that as a result of the intubation for the hernia surgery, Casterline suffered vocal cord paralysis. Dr. Bogdasarian opined that Dr. Khoury should have discovered the vocal cord damage during his preoperative evaluation, and that his failure to do so fell below the standard of care.
. Dr. Khoury moved for summary judgment arguing that Casterline had failed to present appropriate expert testimony to establish that Dr. Khoury's conduct fell below the appropriate standard of care. Dr. Khoury's motion challenged only Dr. Bogdasarian's qualifications to render expert testimony in this case. Specifically, Dr. Khoury, a general surgeon, argued that Dr. Bogdasarian, an otolaryngologist, was not qualified to render an expert opinion as to the appropriate standard of care for a general surgeon. The trial court granted Dr. Khoury's motion for summary judgment. Casterline appeals asserting one assignment of error: "The trial court erred to the prejudice of the plaintiff/appellant by granting defendant/appellee's motion for summary judgment."
. We review a grant of summary judgment de novo. Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co. (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 102, 105. Thus, we review the trial court's grant of summary judgment independently and without deference to its determination. Lexford Prop. Mgmt., L.L.C. v. Lexford Prop. Mgmt., Inc. (2001), 147 Ohio App.3d 312, 316.
. Summary judgment is proper when: (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; and (3) it appears from the evidence that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion, and viewing such evidence most strongly in favor of the party against whom the motion is made, that conclusion is adverse to that party. Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing, Inc. (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 64, 66.
. " party seeking summary judgment, on the ground that the nonmoving party cannot prove its case, bears the initial burden of informing the trial court of the basis of the motion, and identifying those portions of the record that demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact on the essential element(s) of the nonmoving party's claims." Dresher v. Burt (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 280, 293. If the moving party has satisfied this initial burden, the nonmoving party has a reciprocal burden under Civ.R. 56(E) to set forth facts showing that there
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.
|
|