 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Saffold v. Hillside Rehabilitation8/6/2001
JUDGMENT: Affirmed.
This timely appeal comes for consideration upon the record in the trial court and the parties' briefs. Appellant, Houston G. Saffold (hereinafter "Saffold"), appeals the trial court's dismissal of his complaint against Appellees, St. Elizabeth Hospital Medical Center (hereinafter "Hospital") and the Hospital's Director of Medical Administration Services (hereinafter "Director"), pursuant to a motion for summary judgment. The issue before us is whether the trial court erred by granting summary judgment for the Hospital and Director. For the following reasons, we conclude the trial court did not err and affirm its decision.
Saffold was experiencing back pain and went to Dr. Chandler Kohli for treatment. On May 9, 1991, Dr. Kohli performed back surgery on Saffold in the Hospital to treat Saffold's condition. Subsequent to the surgery, Saffold continued to feel back pain and, on April 8, 1992, a surgeon at the Veterans Administration Hospital in Cleveland, Ohio, successfully alleviated his pain. Saffold proceeded to file a medical malpractice claim on July, 2, 1992 against the Hospital, the Director, and several other parties. On September 24, 1992, Saffold voluntarily dismissed the complaint without prejudice pursuant to Civ.R. 41(A).
On May 14, 1998, Saffold filed a new complaint alleging both medical malpractice and fraudulent concealment against nine parties, including the defendants named in the July 1992 complaint, as well as the attorneys representing him in that case. After discovery, five of the parties filed motions for summary judgment which were granted and sustained on appeal by this court in Saffold v. Hillside Rehabilitation Hosp. (June 27, 2000), Mahoning App. No. 99 CA 76, unreported, discretionary appeal denied 90 Ohio St.3d 1428, certiorari denied ___ U.S. ___, (2001) 121 S.Ct. 1362. ("Saffold, I") Subsequent to the first round of filings, the Hospital and Director filed a separate motion for summary judgment which the trial court granted.
Saffold asserts two different assignments of error:
"The trial court erred to substantive prejudice of appellant when it granted summary judgment favoring the defendants and therefore the trial court clearing abused its discretion."
"Defendant's intentionally committed fraud when they intentionally perverted trust for the purpose of inducing, and they did induce appellant to rely on what they told appellant, and, further, withheld information from appellant, same of which appellant did rely upon, and caused appellant to dismiss his lawsuit because of defendant's false representation of a matter of fact."
We affirm the trial court's decision because Saffold's claims are barred by the statute of limitations and not saved by R.C. 2305.19, and he failed to plead fraud with the requisite particularity in violation of Civ.R. 9(B).
We note Saffold's second assignment of error violates App.R. 16 because it does not assign error to the actions of the trial court. Instead, he merely argues the merits of his case and asserts he should be given a chance to prove his claims to a jury. This argument is not separate from his first assignment of error, rather, it continues the argument he makes in support of his first assignment of error. Therefore, we will address both assignments of error together.
When reviewing a trial court's order granting summary judgment, we apply the same standard used by the trial court, Parenti v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (1990), 66 Ohio App.3d 826, 829 and our standard of review is de novo. Doe v. Shaffer (2000), 90 Ohio St.3d 388, 390. Pursuant to Civ.R. 56, summary judgment is proper when
Page 1 2 3 4 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|