 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Speers v. Tri-County Dermatology9/24/2001
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
Defendants-appellant Tri-County Dermatology, Inc. ("Tri-County") and Schield M. Wikas, D.O. appeal the July 13, 2000, and August 21, 2000 Judgment Entries of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas which entered judgment in favor of plaintiff-appellee Susan D. Speers on her medical malpractice claim in the amount of $977,000, and which denied appellants a new trial and granted appellee prejudgment interest, respectively.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
In January, 1997, appellee consulted Dr. Wikas regarding cosmetic laser resurfacing to eliminate lines and creases around her mouth. Dr. Wikas was one of the owners of Tri-County. Dr. Wikas' medical records show Dr. Wikas informed appellee of the risks of scarring, hyperpigmentation (over-pigmentation), and redness. Those same records do not show Dr. Wikas advised appellee of the risk of hypopigmentation (under-pigmentation/whiteness). Dr. Wikas claims he advised appellee of the risk of hypopigmentation verbally. Appellee denies this claim. Appellee consented to proceed with the procedure which was performed on March 13, 1997, at the Aultman Center for One Day Surgery. Appellee experienced scarring and hypopigmentation as a result of the procedure. Thereafter, appellee began corrective laser treatments with Dr. Mark Foglietti, a plastic surgeon. On September 28, 1998, appellee filed a medical malpractice action against Tri-County, Dr. Wikas, and Aultman Ambulatory Services, Inc. ("Aultman"). In her complaint, appellee alleged Dr. Wikas negligently performed the laser resurfacing procedure on her upper lip and chin, causing her injury. Specifically, appellee claimed Dr. Wikas and the Aultman laser technician used an improper scan time, a claim admitted by appellee's expert, Dr. Poitras, to be based upon speculation. Appellee later asserted Dr. Wikas failed to set the laser used, the Sharplan SilkLaser, to the appropriate wattage, an assertion discredited by appellee's second expert, Dr. Nestor. Appellee was not permitted to utilize Dr. Nestor because of failure to timely identify him as her expert. After appellee deposed appellants' expert, Dr. Siegle, appellee voluntarily dismissed her complaint on November 12, 1997. Appellee refiled her complaint on December 6, 1999. Appellee named Dr. Nestor, and not Dr. Poitras, as her expert witness. In her refiled complaint, appellee asserted Dr. Wikas' treatment fell below the accepted standard of care in three ways: 1) by using the SilkTouch mode instead of the FeatherTouch mode; 2) by failing to obtain adequate training for the SilkLaser device; and 3) by using an improper technique. Appellee also claimed Dr. Wikas failed to inform her of all the risks of the procedure, specifically hypopigmentation; failed to inform her he had never before used the Sharplan SilkLaser; and failed to inform her another laser device could have been used. Appellee claimed she would not have consented to undergo the procedure if she had been advised of these risks. Appellee withdrew her claim the Aultman laser technologist was negligent, but asserted a negligent credentialing claim against Aultman for granting laser privileges to Dr. Wikas. The case proceeded to jury trial. Appellee presented testimony from her experts, John Fisher, Sc. D., and Dr. Nestor. On the fourth day of trial and after appellee had rested her case, Aultman disclosed (for the first time) records regarding Dr. Wikas' prior use of the Sharplan SilkLaser. Aultman then entered into a settlement agreement with appellee and was dismissed from the case. Appellants offered the testimony of their expert, Dr. Siegle, who testified Dr. Wikas met the requisite standard of care, and Dr. Wikas fully informed appellee of the mater
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|