 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hayes v. Administrator10/30/1997
1), 59 Ohio St.3d 124, syllabus. As appellee's treating physician, Dr. Fry's medical opinion was based on facts derived from his treatment of appellee, including a review of his medical records and past medical history. In formulating a diagnosis from which to treat his patient, Dr. Fry would be remiss if he did not review appellee's entire record, including the medical records of other treating physicians.1This does not mean that Dr. Fry's conclusion as to the cause of appellee's injury was drawn from the opinion of another not presently before the court. On the contrary, Dr. Fry's examination of appellee, supplemented by his medical history, provided Dr. Fry, as his treating physician, the bases from which to formulate his diagnosis and to plan his treatment of appellee.
1It should be noted that appellant's argument is inconsistent. Initially, the BWC argues that Dr. Fry inappropriately based his medical opinion on the opinions of other physicians, yet later it criticizes Dr. Fry for failing to consider the medical records of other treating physicians.
5 This conclusion is reinforced by defense counsel's later questioning of Dr. Fry during cross-examination:
THE BWC: * Now, but you did have, and it was your testimony you did have some excerpts in your office chart, State's Exhibit 1, regarding a diagnosis of depression from other doctors, and you relied on that diagnosis to come to your opinion?
*
DR. FRY: No. I relied upon the six, six times that I saw John. I think it was six visits in 1996. That's what I've relied upon. The content of his conversations and his appearance and his despondent, hopeless, helpless mood that he was showing and feeling, that he should, that he was worthless and that he might as well, you know, kill himself.
As can be ascertained by the excerpted testimony, any opinion regarding causation was based on facts or data perceived by Dr. Fry and was not, as the BWC argues, based upon the opinions of experts not before the court.
The BWC's sole assignment of error is not well taken and is hereby overruled.
Judgment affirmed.
This cause is affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant his costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
TERRENCE O'DONNELL, PRESIDING JUDGE
TIMOTHY E. McMONAGLE, JUDGE
LEO M. SPELLACY, JUDGE
|