 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Buerger v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.12/26/1989
e prisoner claimed an Eighth Amendment violation where prison personnel allegedly failed to adequately treat his back problem and made him work even though he had such a problem. Although the court recognized the cause of action, it found that Gamble's allegations of the prison's failure to adequately diagnose and treat his back problem were insufficient to state a cause of action under Section 1983. Instead, the court found that his claims simply sounded in medical malpractice.
Accordingly, the trial court properly considered this case as a medical malpractice action. Moreover, it remains incumbent upon plaintiff to provide expert testimony on the standard of care in this case. For without such testimony it is impossible to determine the nature of his medical needs. And, it is unreasonable in this case to determine how indifferent defendant was to those needs unless some standard is proffered to measure the actions against. Hence, we find that the trial court's decision was consistent with the principles set forth in Estelle, supra.
In summary, the trial court was correct in holding that plaintiff needed to provide expert testimony on the standard of care to establish his case of medical malpractice. Plaintiff's claim was not one within the common knowledge of laymen. And, the trial court was correct in treating plaintiff's claims for indifference to medical needs as a malpractice action.
Plaintiff's assignments of error are overruled, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
MCCORMAC, P.J., and MARTIN, J., concur.
JOHN D. MARTIN, J., of the Fairfield County Court of Common Pleas, sitting by assignment.
|