 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Stant v. Lin3/13/2002
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Civil Appeal from Common Pleas Court
JUDGMENT: Judgment Affirmed
Plaintiff-Appellant, Roger L. Stant ("Appellant"), individually and as the executor of the estate of Virginia Stant, deceased, appeals from an Allen County Common Pleas Court decision finding in favor of Defendant-Appellees, C.T. Lin, M.D. and C.T. Lin, M.D., Neurosurgery, Inc. ("Dr. Lin"), in a medical malpractice action.
Appellant contends that the trial court erred by submitting an interrogatory to the jury that asked whether Dr. Lin was negligent instead of whether Dr. Lin deviated from the appropriate standard of care. Because the trial court instructed the jury on the applicable standard of care necessary for a finding of negligence and because the issue of negligence is a determinative issue in a medical malpractice case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in submitting Dr. Lin's proposed jury interrogatory.
The facts leading to this appeal are as follows. Virginia Stant, a patient of Dr. Lin, died of a stroke following a carotid endarterectomy procedure performed while in Dr. Lin's care. Appellant, the widower of Virginia Stant, filed a complaint against Dr. Lin alleging medical malpractice. Appellant asserted that Dr. Lin was negligent in his care and treatment of the decedent.
After the close of evidence at trial, counsel for both parties submitted proposed jury interrogatories to the trial court. Appellant's first submitted jury interrogatory asked whether Dr. Lin deviated from the applicable standard of care or whether Dr. Lin was negligent in his care of Virginia Stant. Dr. Lin's first jury interrogatory, however, only asked whether he was negligent in his care of Virginia Stant. Appellant subsequently requested that the court refer only to the applicable standard of care in the first interrogatory as opposed to his written submission that also included a reference to negligence. The trial court, however, submitted Dr. Lin's proposed interrogatory.
The jury found in favor of Dr. Lin on the issue of negligence by answering in the negative to the first interrogatory. Consequently, the jury signed the general verdict form in Dr. Lin's favor, and judgment was entered accordingly. Challenging the trial court's decision to submit Dr. Lin's interrogatory, Appellant brings this appeal, asserting the following sole assignment of error for our review.
Assignment of Error I
The trial court erred to the prejudice of the Appellant by submitting to the jury a jury interrogatory that was not directed at a determinative issue, based on the claim prosecuted and the evidence presented.
Appellant claims that the trial court erred by not referring to the standard of care in the first interrogatory submitted to the jury, asserting that the deviation from the applicable standard is the determinative issue in a malpractice case. Based upon the following rationale, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in deciding which interrogatories to put before the jury.
The Ohio Supreme Court has held that a trial court has a mandatory duty to submit written interrogatories to the jury upon the request of any party. However, Civ.R. 49(B) does not require the trial judge to act as merely a conduit and submit all interrogatories counsel may propose. The trial court retains discretion to reject proposed interrogatories that are ambiguous, confusing, redundant, or otherwise legally objectionable.
A trial court's decision whether to submit a proposed interrogatory cannot be disturbed on appeal absent a showing that the trial court abused its discretion. An ab
Page 1 2 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|