Castrataro v. Urban3/7/2000
APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.
Plaintiff-appellant, Linda Castrataro, appeals from a judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas granting the summary judgment motion of defendants-appellees, Kenneth Urban and Central Ohio Medical Group. Because the trial court improperly granted defendants' summary judgment motion, we reverse.
On April 10, 1997, plaintiff filed a complaint against defendants asserting that on or about June 9, 1995, defendants failed to properly diagnose and treat plaintiff for Epstein-Barr virus. Defendants responded with an answer denying liability and asserting various affirmative defenses, including the statute of limitations.
On May 7, 1998, defendants filed a motion to extend the time to disclose their witnesses, as plaintiff had failed to identify her expert witness. By decision and judgment entry filed June 17, 1998 ("June 17, 1998 decision"), the trial court denied defendants' motion. The court noted that the scheduling order provided for initial joint disclosure of witnesses on February 12, 1998, with supplemental joint disclosure on May 7, 1998. Because both deadlines had expired, the court found that any "witness not having been disclosed on either of those two dates is precluded from testifying at the trial currently set for April 8, 1999. Judging from the current status of the court file and the applicable rules, the only witness which the Plaintiff can use at trial is herself." (Decision and Entry, June 17, 1998.) Accordingly, the trial court denied defendants' motion.
On July 8, 1998, and despite no motion from plaintiff appearing in the record, defendants filed a Memorandum Contra Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Case Schedule and Plaintiff's Motion for Status Conference. In addition, defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendants attached no affidavit to their motion, but based their motion strictly on plaintiff's having no witnesses but herself.
In response, plaintiff filed a Memorandum Contra Defendants' Summary Judgment Motion, and at the same time filed her Response to Defendants' First Request for Documents and Defendants' First Set of Interrogatories. Defendants responded with a Reply Memorandum in Support of Its Summary Judgment Motion.
Beginning August 6, 1998, plaintiff began a series of repetitious motions, filing initially a motion to amend the case schedule, a motion for a status conference, and a motion to transfer the case to another judge. The next day, she filed a reply to defendants' summary judgment motion. In the midst of plaintiff's motions, the trial court addressed defendants' summary judgment motion, noting that defendant Urban filed an affidavit stating he did not deviate from the accepted standard of care. Because plaintiff had proffered no expert medical opinion, the trial court found no genuine issue of material fact and granted defendants' summary judgment motion.
As a result, on September 1, 1998, plaintiff filed a memorandum contra defendants' summary judgment motion, a motion to amend the case schedule, a motion for a status conference, and a motion for a new trial. In addition, on September 1, 1998, she filed a motion to amend the case schedule and a motion for status conference, both of which she purportedly had mailed on June 26, 1998 for filing in the court. On September 1, 1998, she also filed a reply to defendants' summary judgment motion and a motion to reassign the matter to a different judge.
Several days later, on September 4, 1998, she filed a motion for a new trial, and a motion to amend the case schedule and motion for status conference, both of which she purportedly had mailed on Jun
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|