 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Walker v. E. End Community Health Ctr.5/1/1998
ical care at the facility or an emergency medical system should have been alerted to provide early care for the patient until he could be brought to an emergency room."
Defendant Nurse Berlon defined the duty in almost the same way. She testified that if someone came into the clinic complaining of chest pain and shoulder pain, she would take vital signs and probably call 911 light away because the Health Center was not equipped to handle this type of emergency.
Thus, in this case, whether the Health Center fulfilled its duty to Arliss depends on a jury's assessment of what the personnel at the Health Center were told. This cannot be determined by summary judgment. Turner v. Turner (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 337, 617 N.E.2d 1123; Frantz v. Beechmont Pet Hosp. (1996), 117 Ohio App.3d 351, 690 N.E.2d 897. At this point, the evidencspresented must be construed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, Walker. Based on our holding and our analysis, however, the granting of summary judgment is reversed only as to defendants East End Health Center, medical assistant Bonita King, receptionist Merrill Bryant, and Deborah Moss Berlon, R.N. The record before us establishes that they are the only defendants who played a part in the issues that must be decided on remand. The first assignment of error is, accordingly, sustained in part.
The judgment in the appeal numbered C-970350 is affirmed. The summary judgment in the appeal numbered C-970344 is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and this cause is remanded for further proceedings in accordance with the terms of this decision.
Judgment accordingly.
SUNDERMANN, P.J., and GORMAN, J., concur.
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.
|
|