 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Broyles v. Summa Health Systems6/22/2005
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
This cause was heard upon the record in the trial court. Each error assigned has been reviewed and the following disposition is made:
{ } Plaintiff-Appellant Harriet Broyles, individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Edwin Broyles, has appealed the decision of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas that denied her relief from judgment. This Court affirms.
I.
{ } On April 8, 2003, Appellant filed a wrongful death complaint against Summa Health System ("Summa"), Maison Aine Nursing Home ("Maison Aine"), Dr. Mark Tereletsky and his medical group GCO Family Medical Group, Inc., (collectively "Tereletsky"). The complaint alleged that all four named defendants provided medical care to Edwin Broyles ("decedent"). The complaint further alleged that the four named defendants were negligent in their treatment of the decedent, and that their negligence resulted in the wrongful death of the decedent.
{ } The four named defendants answered the complaint and denied all of the substantive claims in the complaint. Discovery ensued between the parties. On August 29, 2003, the trial court set a discovery schedule that required Broyles to file a notice with the trial court identifying her experts and attaching copies of the expert reports by November 21, 2003. The August 29, 2003 order also required that the four named defendants file notice with the trial court identifying their experts and attaching copies of the expert reports by January 21, 2004. Broyles did not comply with the August 29, 2003 order.
{ } Between November 26, 2003 and December 29, 2003, Summa, Mainson Aine and Tereletsky filed motions for summary judgment. Their motions were based upon Broyles' failure to comply with the trial court's August 29, 2003 order. Appellant never responded to any of the motions for summary judgment.
{ } On January 21, 2004, Tereletsky and Maison Aine identified their trial experts to the trial court.
{ } On February 27, 2004, the trial court granted Summa, Maison Aine, and Tereletsky summary judgment based upon Broyles' failure to respond to the motions for summary judgment as well as Broyles' failure to comply with the trial court's August 29, 2003 order.
{ } On March 26, 2004, Broyles filed a motion requesting: 1) relief from judgment pursuant to Civ.R. 60(B); 2) leave to file additional evidence in support of her motion for relief from judgment; and 3) a hearing on her motion for relief from judgment. On March 29, 2004, Broyles filed a notice of appeal of the trial court's decision granting summary judgment to the four named defendants, thus divesting the trial court of jurisdiction over her motion for relief from judgment. However, by journal entry dated April 22, 2004, we granted Broyles a thirty day stay and a remand of her direct appeal for a determination on her motion for relief from judgment, motion for leave, and motion for a hearing.
{ } On May 24, 2004, the stay and remand expired without a decision from the trial court, thus jurisdiction over the matter returned to this Court. Broyles failed to prosecute her appeal to this Court, thus we dismissed her direct appeal on July 1, 2004. As a result of our dismissal, the trial court was vested with jurisdiction over Broyles' motion for relief from judgment, which it denied on July 23, 2004.
{ } Broyles has timely appealed the trial court's July 23, 2004 decision, asserting two assignments of error. For ease of analysis, we will address her second assignment of error first.
Assignment of Error Number Two
"THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING [BROYLES'] MOTION TO VACATE
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.
|
|