 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Huntsman v. Aultman Hospital3/28/2005
stayed until February 12, 2004, due to an unrelated proceeding. On April 8, 2004, the trial court sustained Aultman Hospital's objections to production of documents in Volumes II and III but ordered Aultman Hospital "to provide [appellee] with a list identifying the documents that the Court found to be discoverable. * * * Aultman Hospital is not required to produce documents themselves." The trial court recognized and applied R.C. 2305.252, the revised version of the statute, but ordered that Aultman Hospital provide the list "because Plaintiffs cannot obtain the documents from the original source if they do not know what the documents are." (Emphasis added.) Subsequently and pursuant to a motion for clarification by Aultman Hospital, the trial court issued a judgment entry clarifying the April 8, 2004 judgment. That judgment entry was filed on April 20, 2004, and more specifically identified the documents referred to in the April 8, 2004 judgment entry.
{ } It is from the April 8, 2004 judgment entry that appellants appeal. Appellant Aultman Hospital raises the following assignment of error:
{ } "The trial court erred in ordering Aultman Hospital to produce a descriptive listing of selected documents from its peer review and credentialing files."
{ } Appellants Sajid Chughtai and Sajid Chughtai, M.D., Inc., raise the following assignment of error:
{ } "The trial court erred in ordering that information from Aultman Hospital's peer review and credentialing files be disclosed."
{ } Each appellant raises a single assignment of error in which it contends that the trial court erred when it ordered Aultman Hospital to provide appellee with a list identifying documents from its peer review and credentialing files. We agree.
{ } This appeal concerns the confidentiality afforded by the Ohio Revised Code to documents that relate to peer review committees at hospitals. The first issue that must be addressed is which version of the applicable statute (former R.C. 2305.251 or the current, revised version of the statute, which was renumbered as R.C. 2305.252) is to be applied in this case. R.C. 2305.251 was revised and renumbered, becoming R.C. 2305.252, effective April 9, 2003. Appellant Aultman Hospital contends that R.C. 2305.252 is applicable because it became effective while the case was pending. Aultman Hospital argues that because the statute is procedural and not substantive, its application should be prospective. Thus, because R.C. 2305.252 became effective prior to the date of trial in this case, it is applicable. Appellants Dr. Chughtai and Sajid
Q: Chughtai, M.D., Inc., contend that it does not matter which version of the statute applies because the trial court's order violates either version of the statute.
{ } Appellee argues, on the other hand, that the events that gave rise to this case occurred in June 1999, prior to the effective date of R.C. 2305.252, and that the revised version of the statute gives no indication that it was to be applied retroactively. In addition, appellee contends that the statute affects a substantive right, thereby foreclosing retroactive application.
{ } In State ex rel. Holdridge v. Indus. Comm. (1967), 11 Ohio St. 2d 175, 228 N.E.2d 621, the court attempted to distinguish substantive and remedial law, stating: "It is doubtful if a perfect definition of 'substantive law' or 'procedural or remedial law' could be devised. However, the authorities agree that, in general terms, substantive law is that which creates duties, rights, and obligations, while procedural or remedial law prescribes methods of enforcement of rights or obtaining redress." "If the statute change is
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|