 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Gruenspan v. Seitz11/24/1997
PATTON, Judge.
Plaintiff-attorney Charles Gruenspan brought this libel and tortious-interference-with-judicial-process action against defendant-doctor William H. Seitz, Jr., Seitz's attorney, Clay Robinson, and Robinson's law firm, Jacobson, Maynard, Tuschman & Kalur. The allegations of the complaint arose from statements Seitz made in a letter he sent to a common pleas judge hearing a medical malpractice action that plaintiff prosecuted on behalf of a client. Statements in the letter condemned plaintiffs behavior in scheduling Seitz's deposition, and also raised criticisms, allegedly attributable to Robinson, of plaintiffs conduct in unrelated cases. Seitz filed a counterclaim against plaintiff seeking compensation for time spent giving a deposition in the medical malpractice action. The trial court granted summary judgment to all defendants on plaintiffs claim and granted summary judgment to plaintiff on Seitz's counterclaim. Both plaintiff and Seitz appeal. The primary issue in this appeal centers on the trial court's finding that Seitz's letter enjoyed the protection of a qualified privilege, thus foreclosing plaintiffs claims.
The client plaintiff represented in the medical malpractice action cut her finger and required medical attention. The attending physician anesthetized the finger with Benadryl (after learning of the client's allergies to other local anesthetics) and sutured the wound. Unfortunately, complications ensued, and Seitz was later called upon to amputate the tip of the client's finger. The client's suit alleged that the attending physician breached the applicable standard of care by using Benadryl as an anesthetic.
During discovery in the medical malpractice action, plaintiff sought to meet with Seitz, who had not been named a party to the action, and discuss his client's treatment. Seitz refused, pointing out that plaintiffs client had not paid Seitz's medical fee. Plaintiff acknowledged his client's outstanding bill and offered to pay Seitz's usual $250 per hour consulting fee for the meeting. When Seitz continued to refuse to meet plaintiff, plaintiff had the court issue a subpoena for his deposition.
Seitz contacted the judge hearing the matter and asked for instructions. The judge told Seitz he should consult with counsel. Seitz's attorney contacted plaintiff and assured him that Seitz would agree to meet, provided that plaintiff in reasonably compensate" Seitz. Plaintiff stated that his previous offers of compensation were still available.
When the parties tried to schedule a mutually agreeable date, Seitz told plaintiff that he charged a deposition rate of $750 for the first hour and $250 for each additional half hour. Plaintiff told Seitz that he did not want to take his deposition and did not wish to discuss any opinions relating to the care renderesby the attending physician, but simply wanted to discuss the procedures Seitz rendered, as well as Seitz's impressions concerning the cost of future surgery. Plaintiff assured Seitz that the meeting would last one-half hour and that plaintiff "would compensate you for your time."
Seitz again refused to schedule a meeting without first receiving fun payment of his medical bill, so plaintiff had the court issue a second subpoena for Seitz's deposition. The deposition went forward with plaintiff, Seitz, and defendant Robinson (representing the defendant doctor in the medical malpractice action) present. At the conclusion of Seitz's deposition, Robinson apparently asked plaintiff about Seitz's fee. Plaintiff denied owing Seitz any money other than the six dollar witness fee and stated that he "never agreed" to pay the fee. Seitz's office
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|