 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Shoemake v. Hay6/2/2003
Plaintiff-appellant, Denise Shoemake, appeals a judgment of the Clermont County Court of Common Pleas in favor of defendantappellee, Donald L. Hay, M.D. ("Dr. Hay"), after a jury trial in a medical malpractice case. Specifically, appellant disputes two evidentiary rulings by the trial court. Because we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in making either of the two evidentiary rulings, we affirm the trial court's decision.
In November 1998, Dr. Hay, a doctor specializing in obstetrics and gynecology ("OB/GYN"), performed a dilation and curettage procedure on appellant at Clermont Mercy Hospital after discovering that appellant had suffered a miscarriage. Following the operation, appellant experienced nausea, as well as pain and bleeding in her pelvic area. In addition, appellant's uterus was perforated. Following a blood transfusion, appellant was discharged from the hospital.
Appellant returned to the hospital three days later complaining of severe pain. Dr. Hay then discovered that a large hematoma, or blood clot, had formed in appellant's left pelvic area. Due to the possible harmful effects of the hematoma, Dr. Hay removed appellant's left ovary and left fallopian tube.
Several weeks later, appellant went to the emergency room at Anderson Mercy Hospital complaining of severe abdominal pain. Dr. Nancy Simon examined appellant and then referred her to Dr. Joseph Scalfani, an OB/GYN specialist. Upon examining appellant, Dr. Scalfani discovered that appellant had developed severe pelvic adhesions, rendering her right ovary non-viable. After reviewing the surgical options with appellant, Dr. Scalfani performed a hysterectomy on appellant, removing her uterus, right ovary, and right fallopian tube.
In May 2000, appellant filed a complaint against Dr. Hay. In the complaint, she alleged that Dr. Hay negligently cared for and treated her, necessitating the hysterectomy. After a trial, a jury found that Dr. Hay was not negligent in his care and treatment of appellant.
Appellant now appeals the jury verdict, raising two assignments of error.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 1
"THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF THE PLAINTIFFAPPELLANT IN NOT PERMITTING PLAINTIFF TO QUESTION DEFENDANT REGARDING HIS TWO FAILED EFFORTS TO PASS THE OB-GYN BOARD CERTIFICATION EXAMINATION AFTER DEFENDANT TESTIFIED HE WAS BOARD ELIGIBLE; HE TRAINED PHYSICIANS IN ORDER THAT THEY COULD PASS THE BOARD CERTIFICATION EXAM; AND HE OFFERED HIS EXPERT OPINION ON THE ULTIMATE ISSUE OF HIS MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE."
In this assignment of error, appellant argues that the trial court should have allowed her to question Dr. Hay about his failed attempts to pass the OB/GYN board certification exam. According to appellant, questioning Dr. Hay about these failed attempts was relevant because such questioning related to his credibility.
The admission or exclusion of evidence is generally within the sound discretion of the trial court, and a reviewing court may reverse only upon a showing of an abuse of that discretion. Renfro v. Black (1990), 52 Ohio St.3d 27, 32. The term 'abuse of discretion' connotes more than an error of law or of judgment; it implies that the court's attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable. Huffman v. Hair Surgeon, Inc. (1985), 19 Ohio St.3d 83, 87.
Evid.R. 611(B) provides as follows:
"Scope of cross-examination. Cross-examination shall be permitted on all relevant matters and matters affecting credibility."
The case of Keller v. Bacevice (Nov. 30, 1994), Lorain App. No. 94CA005812, 1994 WL 666992, dealt with the precis
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.
|
|