 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Fredericks v. Hall9/8/2005
ion in limine which the court granted was to prohibit cross-examination concerning a prior lawsuit for disability benefits. Korsower himself testified that he suffered from mood disorder, dysthemia and panic attacks. Counsel for Fredericks never attempted to cross-examine him on this testimony. If Fredericks's counsel was unclear as to the scope of the court's ruling, the burden was on him to obtain a ruling from the trial court on that issue. Bryan v. Barnett, 205 Ga. 94 (52 SE2d 613) (1949).
2. Next, Fredericks argues the trial court erred when it overruled his objection to Korsower's testimony about the Stealth System manual. Fredericks claims on appeal that Korsower was never qualified as a Stealth System expert and had never used or been trained to use the system.
But, Fredericks did not make this argument to the trial court. Counsel's only objection at trial to Korsower's testimony about the manual was: "Your Honor, I'm going to object to his testifying about a manual. We're here talking about the standard of care. That's a hearsay statement."
On appeal, Fredericks does not argue that the trial court erred in overruling his hearsay objection; but instead, makes an entirely different argument not raised below. Our review on appeal is limited to those grounds presented to and ruled on by the trial court. Consequently, this enumeration presents nothing for our review. Walker v. State, 258 Ga. App. 333, 336 (574 SE2d 400) (2002); Verde v. Granary Enterprises, 178 Ga. App. 773, 774-775 (345 SE2d 56) (1986).
3. Fredericks also claims the trial court erred in denying his motion in limine to preclude questions about his suspension and discipline by the Georgia Composite State Board of Medical Examiners. There is no transcript of the hearing at which Fredericks claims the judge denied this motion. At a post-trial hearing to supplement the record, the trial court refused to enter a written order on the issue, stating that it had never made a final ruling on the motion but had deferred ruling until a proffer was made at trial on what the proposed evidence would show. A review of the transcript shows that no proffer was ever made at trial. "It is the duty of counsel to obtain a ruling on his motions or objections, and the failure to do so will ordinarily result in a waiver." Totino v. State, 266 Ga. App. 265, 268 (596 SE2d 749) (2004). Where there is no ruling to review, this Court cannot consider the enumerated error. Sanders v. State, 179 Ga. App. 168, 169 (2) (345 SE2d 677) (1986). Thus, this allegation of error is without merit.
4. The Halls' motion for a penalty for frivolous appeal is denied.
Judgment affirmed. Phipps and Mikell, JJ., concur.
|