 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Carpenter v. Kindig3/5/2002
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Civil Appeal from Common Pleas Court
JUDGMENT: Judgment Affirmed.
The appellants/plaintiffs, Jacqueline Carpenter and Bruce Carpenter, appeal the judgment of the Allen County Court of Common Pleas, finding for the appellee/defendant, Dr. Marilyn Kindig ("Dr. Kindig" or "the appellee"). For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
In January 1999, the appellant, Jacqueline Carpenter ("Mrs. Carpenter"), visited Dr. Kindig complaining of severe abdominal discomfort. Initially, Dr. Kindig diagnosed Mrs. Carpenter with possible endometriosis, with a differential diagnosis of appendicitis. Subsequently, Mrs. Carpenter experienced increasing discomfort and, upon Dr. Kindig's recommendation, she visited and was admitted to Lima Memorial Hospital on February 1, 1999. The following day, Mrs. Carpenter underwent surgery for a perforated appendix. The appellant's post-operative diagnosis was perforated appendicitis and right tubo-ovarian abscess.
The appellants filed suit against Dr. Kindig and various defendants on March 13, 2000. All other defendants were eventually dismissed from the case. In response to the complaint, Dr. Kindig asserted a statute of limitations defense and filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court denied the motion, and the case was submitted to a jury trial on August 6, 2001. Pursuant to the trial court's order, the case went forward on the limited issue of statute of limitations, specifically, when the physician-patient relationship between the parties terminated. The jury found for Dr. Kindig on that issue.
The appellants now appeal, asserting two assignments of error for our review.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. I
The trial court erred in excluding evidence which supported the appellants' claim that their action was timely filed in accordance with R.C. 2305.11(A) and limiting the issue to be tried to when the physician-patient relationship terminated.
The appellants assert that the trial court committed error by limiting the trial to the issue of when the physician-patient relationship terminated and, consequently, excluding certain evidence. We disagree with the appellants.
The statute of limitations for bringing a medical malpractice action in Ohio is one year. The Ohio Supreme Court set forth a two-prong analysis to determine whether a plaintiff's action was brought within this time limit:
Under R.C. 2305.11(A), a cause of action for medical malpractice accrues and the one-year statute of limitation commences to run (a) when the patient discovers or, in the exercise of reasonable care and diligence should have discovered, the resulting injury, or (b) when the physician-patient relationship for that condition terminates, whichever occurs later.
The trial court in the instant case ruled prior to trial that, as a matter of law, the date when Mrs. Carpenter discovered her injury was February 2, 1999, the date on which surgery revealed the appellee's misdiagnosis. Because this date clearly violated the statute of limitations, only evidence regarding termination of the physician-patient relationship was admitted at trial. The appellants contend, however, that the date of discovery was not February 2, 1999, but rather one of two other dates, both of which fall within the statute of limitations.
A patient "discovers" or "should have discovered" his or her injury upon the happening of a "cognizable event." A "cognizable event" is one
which does or should lead the patient to believe that the condition of which the patient complains is related to a medical procedur
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.
|
|