 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas v. Lude5/31/1990
ng definitions:
"(D) As used in this section:
"* * *
"(2) 'Physician' means all persons who are licensed to practice medicine and surgery or osteopathic medicine and surgery by the state medical board.
"(3) 'Medical claim' means any claim asserted in any civil action against a physician, podiatrist, or hospital arising out of the diagnosis, care, or treatment of any person.
"* * *
"(5) 'Dentist' means all persons licensed to practice dentistry by the state dental board.
"(6) 'Dental claim' means any claim asserted in any civil action against a dentist arising out of a dental operation or the dental diagnosis, care, or treatment of any person." (See 140 Ohio Laws, Part I, 505, 506.)
Given the language of both Evid.R. 601(D) and R.C. 2305.11(D), this court is compelled to conclude that the competency requirement imposed by Evid.R. 601(D) applies only to claims of liability in civil suits brought against physicians, podiatrists, or hospitals. Since a physician is statutorily distinct from a dentist for purposes of asserting such claims, there is no basis for this court to conclude that Evid.R. 601(D) renders plaintiffs' expert incompetent to testify as to defendant's liability for alleged dental malpractice. Evid.R. 601(D), as an exception to the general rule of competency and as promulgated by the Ohio Supreme Court and adopted by the General Assembly, quite specifically limits its scope to claims asserted against physicians, podiatrists, or hospitals. Any change defendant seeks in the scope of this rule should be addressed to either the Ohio Supreme Court or to the General Assembly. As presently written, Evid.R. 601(D) has no application to a dental malpractice claim asserted against a dentist.
Having found merit in plaintiffs' argument, their sole assignment of error is sustained. Accordingly, the judgment of the court of common pleas is reversed and this matter is remanded to that court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
STRAUSBAUGH and YOUNG, JJ., concur.
ROBERT D. HINES, J., of the Court of Common Pleas of Holmes County, Probate/Juvenile Division, sitting by assignment in the Tenth Appellate District.
|