 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Galvez v. Thomas F. McCafferty Health Center5/30/2002
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED.
. Defendant-appellant MetroHealth Medical Center appeals from the decision of the trial court granting the motion for prejudgment interest filed by the plaintiff-appellee Maria Galvez, Adminstratrix of the Estate of Guadalupe Martinez.
. The trial court entered a detailed opinion resolving the appellee's motion for prejudgment interest. The court stated that it considered the materials submitted by counsel, arguments of counsel, the evidence produced at the prejudgment interest hearing, and the evidence presented during the underlying trial. The appellee initially filed a medical malpractice suit against appellant and its treating physician subsequent to the death of Guadalupe Martinez. Mrs. Martinez, who is survived by her infant daughter and her husband, died following an emergency caesarean section as a result of complications of preeclampsia. The jury found Dr. Eric Friess to have violated the applicable standard of care and returned a verdict for the appellee in the sum of $2,750,000.
. It is important to note at the outset that MetroHealth was self insured in the amount of $1,000,000. The excess insurance carrier was Mutual Assurance Company. The evidence indicates that a final pretrial was held on December 6, 1999. The day prior to this pretrial, the appellant faxed the appellee a settlement offer of $150,000 in cash and a remaining structure funded with $103,000. At the pretrial the appellee made her initial settlement demand in the amount of $3,500,000. A second final pretrial was held on January 5, 2000, and the trial court indicated that a representative of the excess carrier should be present. Mr. Beech of Mutual Assurance was informed of the trial court's desire for his attendance at this meeting, but he chose not to attend.
. On January 11, 2000, counsel for the appellee responded by letter and stated that he was authorized to settle the case for $1,750,000. He asked that this lowered amount be communicated to the excess insurance carrier. The letter also noted that issues were raised regarding the economic loss expert's evaluation. Counsel indicated that, "as a practical matter, I do not believe his numbers dramatically impact on the evaluation of the case."
. A copy of a facsimile dated January 12, 2000, from appellant's counsel to the appellee's counsel acknowledges the reduction in demand. The appellant raised its offer to $400,000 plus the structured offer as set forth previously. The appellee responded on January 13, 2000, as follows:
. I am in receipt of your fax of January 12, 2000, which I interpret as an offer of $500,000. The offer is rejected.
. I believe that our previous demand of $1.75 million is very reasonable considering this tragic and completely preventable death of a very young 24 year old wife and mother. In order to resolve this case it is essential that your client, Metrohealth Medical Center, tender its retention of $1 million to permit us to begin negotiations with the excess carrier, Mutual Assurance Company.
. Considering that the upside of what a jury may do with this tragedy is significantly greater than the downside, I think we're getting to the end of the line in terms of where we would recommend our clients go to resolve this case.
. Be advised that I am authorized to resolve the case for $1.5 million. Please let me know if your client and the excess carrier are willing to resolve the case on that basis.
. Finally, you mentioned at the pre-trial on January 5th that you may call a nurse to testify. I asked you to produce her for deposition if you intended to call her. Since I have not heard from y
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.
|
|