 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Watkins v. Eighth Dist. Court of Appeals8/5/1998
The State ex rel. Watkins et al. v. Eighth District Court of Appeals et al.
Writ of procedendo to compel court of appeals to lift its stay of Cleveland Clinic Foundation's appeal in a medical malpractice action against it and to proceed to a merit determination - Writ granted, when.
Submitted May 12, 1998
In Procedendo.
In June 1997, the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas entered judgment upon a jury verdict in favor of relators, Birdie and Thomas Watkins, in their medical malpractice action against the Cleveland Clinic Foundation ("Cleveland Clinic"). The common pleas court ordered Cleveland Clinic to pay relators over fourteen million dollars in damages.
Cleveland Clinic appealed the judgment to respondent, Eighth District Court of Appeals. The court of appeals granted relators' motion and placed the appeal on its accelerated docket, and Cleveland Clinic filed its appellate brief. Cleveland Clinic raised ten assignments of error in its appeal.
At the times pertinent to this case, Cleveland Clinic was self- insured and also had excess coverage with a variety of insurance companies. In addition, during this period, Cleveland Clinic had a contract with P.I.E. Mutual Insurance Company ("PIE"), in which PIE agreed to manage the defense of certain medical malpractice suits against Cleveland Clinic and pay Cleveland Clinic's defense costs, including legal fees, expert witness fees, and related litigation expenses. PIE also agreed to manage the defense and pay defense costs of the covered cases on appeal until the cases were resolved. Pursuant to the contract, PIE managed Cleveland Clinic's defense in relators' medical malpractice case and provided counsel for Cleveland Clinic at trial and on appeal. Cleveland Clinic also hired additional counsel for its appeal and posted a supersedeas appeal bond in the amount of seventeen million dollars.
In December 1997, the Franklin County Common Pleas Court ordered the rehabilitation of PIE pursuant to R.C. Chapter 3903. Among other things, the common pleas court concluded that PIE's further transaction of business would be financially hazardous to its policyholders, creditors, or the public, as described in R.C. 3903.12(A). The common pleas court's order of rehabilitation included the following stay provision:
"Any action or proceeding pending in any Court in which Defendant is a party or is obligated to defend a party, is hereby stayed for a period of ninety days and such additional time as is necessary for the Rehabilitator to obtain proper representation and prepare for further proceedings. The Rehabilitator shall take such action respecting such pending litigation as he considers necessary in the interests of Justice and for the protection of policyholders, creditors and the public. * * * "
In January 1998, the court of appeals sua sponte issued a stay of Cleveland Clinic's appeal in relators' case pursuant to the Franklin County Common Pleas Court's December 1997 rehabilitation order and R.C. 3903.15(A). The court of appeals stayed the appeal through March 15, and ordered counsel to notify the court of any changes in the case status. The court of appeals subsequently extended the stay.
In March 1998, relators filed a complaint in this court for a writ of mandamus to compel the court of appeals to lift the stay and proceed with Cleveland Clinic's appeal. A few weeks after relators filed their complaint for extraordinary relief, the Franklin County Common Pleas Court ordered PIE's liquidation under R.C. 3903.16. In its liquidation order, the common pleas court ruled that " ll proceedings in which PIE is a party or is obligated to defend
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|