 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Shoemaker v. Crawford12/24/1991
MCCORMAC, Judge.
Defendant-appellant, Diane M. Zitter, M.D., appeals from the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas entered on the jury's verdict for appellee, Maggie F. Shoemaker, both individually and as administrator of the estate of her daughter, Connie S. Shockley, in the total amount of $3,000,000.
Appellant raises the following assignments of error:
"I. As a matter of law, the jury's narrative responses to Interrogatory No. 2C were not supported by the evidence adduced at trial, and the jury's verdict against Dr. Zitter was therefore not supported by any evidence, thus necessitating reversal of the judgment of the court below.
"II. Pursuant to Section 2307.43 of the Ohio Revised Code, plaintiff can recover a maximum of $200,000.00 as and for the general damages suffered by Connie Shockley prior to her death, and the jury's verdict must therefore be reduced to the sum of 1.2 million dollars.
"III. The trial erred to the substantial prejudice of this defendant in precluding evidence regarding the settlement agreement reached by defendants Crawford and Choi during the trial proceedings.
"IV. Based upon the jury's interrogatory answers assigning percentages of liability, this defendant may not be required to pay more than her proportionate share of the verdict, as found by the jury, in the event the verdict is upheld.
"V. The trial court erred to the substantial prejudice of this defendant in permitting plaintiff to introduce into evidence a diary written by plaintiff's decedent for the reason that diary was not relevant to the issues at trial and was intended solely to inflame the passions of the jury.
"VI. The trial court erred as a matter of law in permitting the decedent's brother and sister to testify to and recover for their mental anguish and loss of society.
"VII. The trial court erred in failing to grant defendant's motion for new trial or remittitur for the reason that the amount of the jury's verdict was excessive, against the manifest weight of the evidence, and appears to have been the result of passion or prejudice.
"VIII. The trial court erred as matter of law in failing to grant defendant's motion for new trial."
This case arises from the death of Connie Shockley and her twenty-two-week-old fetus as the result of complications arising after her bowel obstruction surgery. The surgery was performed by Dr. Patrick Crawford. Appellant was present during surgery to assist and be available in case complications arose regarding the decedent's pregnancy.
In order to fully understand the facts of this medical malpractice action, we must briefly review the decedent's past medical history. The decedent was born with a congenital abnormality known as a tracheoesophageal fistula. The condition arises when the esophagus fails to fully develop in utero. Instead of creating a passage from the mouth to the stomach, the upper portion of the esophagus ends in a blind pouch and the lower portion connects to the trachea. The condition is rectified by a series of surgeries, performed during infancy, which culminate in a colon interposition. A colon interposition involves the repositioning of a portion of the large bowel to take the place of the esophagus. One result of the numerous surgical procedures is the development of adhesions, fibrous bands of scar tissue, between and around the loops of the small intestine. These adhesions place the patient at greater risk for developing bowel obstructions in the future.
On February 16, 1988, the decedent was admitted to Mt. Carmel Medical Center with comp
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.
|
|