 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hughes v. Bethesda Hospital5/20/2005
DECISION
Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed
{ } Plaintiff-appellant, Anita A. Hughes, appeals the summary judgment entered by the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas in favor of defendants-appellees, Bethesda Hospital, Inc., Susan G. Weinberg, M.D., and Northeast Radiology, Inc., ("Northeast") in a medical-malpractice action.
{ } This case involves the alleged failure of a physician to diagnose or to report a spinal-cord compression. In 2002, Hughes went to the emergency room of Bethesda North Hospital complaining of neck and back pain and numbness in her limbs. The emergency-room physician, Dr. Edmond A. Hooker, ordered a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examination.
{ } Dr. Weinberg, who was employed by Northeast, interpreted the results of the MRI. After Dr. Weinberg had interpreted the MRI, the hospital discharged Hughes. Hughes later filed suit, claiming that Dr. Weinberg had negligently failed to diagnose the spinal compression or to report the compression to the emergency-room personnel. Dr. Hooker was also named in the suit, but the claims against him were voluntarily dismissed.
{ } In her deposition, Dr. Weinberg stated that she could not recall interpreting the results, but she testified that the written notes concerning the MRI were hers and that the MRI did indicate spinal-cord compression. She further stated that if she had detected the compression when reading the MRI, she would have told Dr. Hooker about the abnormality, but she did not specifically remember that she had done so.
{ } Dr. Hooker testified that he recalled discussing the matter with Dr. Weinberg but did not recall that she had diagnosed spinal-cord compression. And at the time of treatment, Dr. Hooker had dictated a note stating that Dr. Weinberg had informed him that there was no compression.
{ } The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Bethesda, Dr. Weinberg, and Northeast. Hughes then filed a Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment, which the court denied.
{ } In her first assignment of error, Hughes now argues that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Dr. Weinberg and Northeast and in denying the motion for relief from the summary judgment. For the following reasons, we find no merit in the assignment.
{ } Pursuant to Civ.R. 56(C), a motion for summary judgment may be granted only when no genuine issue of material fact remains to be litigated, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and it appears from the evidence that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion, and, with the evidence construed most strongly in favor of the nonmoving party, that conclusion is adverse to that party. The party moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of demonstrating that no genuine issue of material fact exists, and once it has satisfied its burden, the nonmoving party has a reciprocal burden to set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.
This court reviews the granting of summary judgment de novo.
{ } To establish medical malpractice, the plaintiff must demonstrate that injury was caused by the doing of some particular thing that a physician of ordinary skill, care and diligence would not have done under the circumstances or by the failure to do some thing that such a physician would have done under the circumstances, and that the injury complained of was the direct and proximate result of the act or omission. In general, the plaintiff must demonstrate a breach of the applicable standard of care and proximate causation through expert testimony.
{ } In the case at bar, th
Page 1 2 3 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|