 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Corcino v. Neurosurgical Services3/27/2002
r second stroke in 1991. Appellees argue that at this time, the Corcinos should have investigated Mary Ann's condition to determine if it resulted from medical malpractice.
However, appellees fail to provide evidence of the kind listed in Civ.R. 56 to support their claim. Instead, appellees present depositions and medical records which address little more than opinions concerning the appropriate standard of care and Mary Ann's physical condition after the strokes. The extent of Mary Ann's injury after her second stroke is not the relevant issue in this appeal. The relevant issue is at what point her condition would have alerted a reasonable patient that an improper medical procedure, treatment, or diagnosis has taken place. See Akers, 65 Ohio St.3d at 425, citing Allenius, 42 Ohio St.3d at 134. Appellees present no evidence to substantiate their claim that the mere occurrence of Mary Ann's second stroke should have put the Corcinos on notice to investigate whether her injury was the proximate result of malpractice. See Flowers, 63 Ohio St.3d at syllabus.
Similarly, appellants present no evidence to substantiate their claim that the cognizable event occurred in May 1995. As such, genuine issues of material fact remain to be litigated. If questions of fact remain as to the date of the cognizable event, summary judgment is not proper. Leftwich v. Martelino (1997), 117 Ohio App.3d 405, 411. See, also, Evans v. Southern Ohio Med. Ctr. (1995), 103 Ohio App.3d 250, 256.
In the case sub judice, reasonable minds could come to different conclusions concerning what date the cognizable event took place. Summary judgment was therefore improper.
The assignment of error is sustained to the extent that summary judgment was improper.
III.
Having sustained appellants' assignment of error, this Court reverses the decision of the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas granting summary judgment to appellees and remands the cause for further proceedings.
Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.
The Court finds that there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common Pleas, County of Lorain, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(E). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.
Costs taxed to appellees.
Exceptions.
DONNA J. CARR
BATCHELDER, P. J., BAIRD, J. CONCUR
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.
|
|