 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Wolder v. DiPasquale4/29/2005
} An exception to the rule requiring expert testimony exists when the lack of skill or care of the physician is so apparent as to be within the knowledge of laymen. Bruni, supra. The same rules apply to dental malpractice actions. Rogoff v. King (1993), 91 Ohio App.3d 438; see McDaniel v. Faust, Montgomery App. No. 17387 (January 22, 1999). The trial court properly granted summary judgment to the appellee for the failure of the appellant to produce an expert on her malpractice claim. The assignment of error is overruled.
{ } The judgment of the trial court is Affirmed.
GRADY, J., and YOUNG, J., concur.
(Hon. Frederick N. Young, Retired from the Court of Appeals, Second Appellate District sitting by assignment of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Ohio)
|