 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Prysock v. Ohio State University Medical Center6/4/2002
. Plaintiff-appellant, Takeisha Prysock, appeals from a judgment of the Ohio Court of Claims granting summary judgment to defendant-appellee, The Ohio State University Medical Center ("Ohio State").
. In her complaint filed January 5, 2001, appellant alleged negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress arising from medical care she received from Ohio State. Appellant alleged that, on January 12, 1999, she delivered twin baby girls by caesarian section at Ohio State. She further alleged that the surgical team negligently left a sponge in her body following the caesarian section. Ten days later, on January 22, 1999, appellant returned to Ohio State after complaining of a bad odor emanating from her vaginal cavity. A surgical sponge was removed from her body by a doctor who was not a member of the surgical team that performed the caesarian section.
. Ohio State filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that appellant failed to comply with the statute of limitations governing medical malpractice claims. Thereafter, appellant requested, and was granted, leave to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint contained the identical negligence causes of action, but added claims for fraud and breach of contract. Appellant alleged that Ohio State, through its agents, fraudulently concealed the true nature of her medical condition by failing to disclose the nature of the foreign object left in her body following the caesarian section when she asked about it. Appellant asserts that she did not discover the full nature of her condition until she obtained her medical records in March 2000.
. By entry filed August 31, 2001, the trial court granted Ohio State's motion and entered summary judgment for Ohio State on all claims set forth in the amended complaint. The trial court found that all of appellant's claims were essentially medical malpractice claims and, therefore, were governed by the one-year statute of limitations set forth in R.C. 2305.11(B)(1). Because appellant knew, or should have known, the extent and seriousness of her condition following the removal of the surgical sponge, the trial court determined that her cause of action accrued on January 22, 1999. Because appellant did not file her complaint within one year of when her cause of action accrued, her claims were time-barred. Therefore, the trial court granted summary judgment for Ohio State.
. Appellant appeals, assigning the following error:
I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANT.
. An appellate court's review of summary judgment is conducted under a de novo standard. Coventry Twp. v. Ecker (1995), 101 Ohio App.3d 38, 41; Koos v. Cent. Ohio Cellular, Inc. (1994), 94 Ohio App.3d 579, 588. Summary judgment is proper only when the parties moving for summary judgment demonstrate: (1) no genuine issue of material fact exists; (2) the moving parties are entitled to judgment as a matter of law; and (3) reasonable minds could come to but one conclusion and that conclusion is adverse to the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made, that party being entitled to have the evidence most strongly construed in its favor. Civ.R. 56; State ex rel. Grady v. State Emp. Relations Bd. (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 181, 183.
. Appellant's assignment of error alleges that the trial court erred in finding that her claims were barred by the statute of limitations. Specifically, she contends that her medical malpractice claims should be governed by R.C. 2305.11(B)(3)(a) [a repealed statute of repose for medical malpractice claims], or, in the alternative, if her claims were governed by the one-year statute of limitations
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|