 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Aaron Moskovitz9/26/1991
JUDGMENT: APPEALS DISMISSED.
The consolidated appeals sub judice arise from a medical malpractice action with a lengthy record. For simplicity, the Court will refer to the parties by their designation below.
The original plaintiff, Margaret Moskovitz, commenced this action by filing a complaint for discovery against seven named defendants and two John Does on October 21, 1988. Plaintiff filed three amended complaints during the course of the proceedings to add and substitute additional plaintiffs and defendants and raise medical malpractice and various related claims.
The case developed into a wrongful death and survivorship action involving as many as sixteen defendants after Margaret Moskovitz died as a result of the alleged malpractice. The medical malpractice claim asserted that defendants failed to timely diagnose and properly treat decedent's cancer which ultimately spread throughout her body and unnecessarily caused amputation of her leg before she died. A punitive damages claim alleged that certain defendants altered and/or destroyed certain medical treatment records.
The case proceeded to a jury trial on the third amended complaint against three defendants, viz., Doctors Harry E. Figgie, III and John Makley, and their practice group and employer, University Orthopaedic Associates, Inc. ("University Orthopaedic"), after non-binding arbitration concluded in favor of plaintiff. At the close of plaintiff's case, the trial court granted Dr. Makley's motion for a directed verdict, but overruled similar motions made by Dr. Figgie and University Orthopaedics. The trial court entered judgment of dismissal in favor of Dr. Makley on December 27, 1989.
The two remaining defendants, Dr. Figgie and University Orthopaedics, renewed their directed verdict motions after the close of all the evidence. Also at the close of all the evidence, the trial court overruled Dr. Figgie's motion for a directed verdict on the punitive damages claim and plaintiff purported to dismiss all outstanding claims against University Orthopaedics during the ensuing discussion which follows:
THE COURT: Punitive damages will go. Mr. Kampinski, over the weekend I looked at your complaint, the amended complaint. Even though you indicated to me that you had not sued all of the defendants for punitive damages, that's not the fact of the matter. You have sued all of them.
MR. KAMPINSKI: That's correct, your Honor. We, however, will proceed only as to Dr. Figgie, both as to compensatory and punitive.
THE COURT: So you're dismissing your punitive claims against University Orthopedics? (sic.)
MR. KAMPINSKI: Yes, sir.
MR. JACKSON: Does that include the other claim against University Orthopaedics?
MR. KAMPINSKI: Which one?
MR. JACKSON: Did I understand what you just said to mean you're not pursuing University Orthopaedics, at all?
MR. KAMPINSKI: That's correct.
THE COURT: Just Dr. Figgie. University Orthopaedics is not in it.
Accordingly, the trial court instructed the jury only as to plaintiff's claims against Dr. Figgie. The jury returned with a verdict against Dr. Figgie, awarding plaintiff compensatory damages of $2 million on the survivorship claim, $1,250,000 on the wrongful death claim, $5,000 for funeral and burial expenses, and punitive damages of $3 million. The trial court entered judgment against Dr. Figgie pursuant to the verdict on December 28, 1989.
The trial court thereafter denied Dr. Figgie's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial and also denied plaintiff's motion for prejudgment int
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.
|
|