 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Likes v. Richland Correctional Institution1/12/2005
Magistrate Steven A. Larson
DECISION
{ } On December 17, 2004, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Civ.R. 56(C). On December 28, 2004, plaintiff filed a response.
{ } Civ.R. 56(C) states, in part, as follows:
{ } " * Summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, written admissions, affidavits, transcripts of evidence, and written stipulations of fact, if any, timely filed in the action, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. No evidence or stipulation may be considered except as stated in this rule. A summary judgment shall not be rendered unless it appears from the evidence or stipulation, and only from the evidence or stipulation, that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion and that conclusion is adverse to the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made, that party being entitled to have the evidence or stipulation construed most strongly in the party's favor. *" See, also, Williams v. First United Church of Christ (1974), 37 Ohio St.2d 150; Temple v. Wean United, Inc. (1977), 50 Ohio St.2d 317.
{ } It is not disputed that plaintiff was an inmate in the custody and control of defendant at defendant's Richland Correctional Institution at all times relevant to this action. R.C. 5120.16. Plaintiff alleges in his complaint that he was deprived of necessary medical care, including diagnostic testing and treatment, for chronic Hepatitis C, and that the lack of testing and treatment resulted in physical harm and emotional distress. The crux of plaintiff's complaint is that he sustained personal injuries as a result of medical malpractice by defendant.
{ } In order to prevail on a claim of medical malpractice, plaintiff must first prove: 1) the standard of care recognized by the medical community; 2) the failure of defendant to meet the requisite standard of care; and, 3) a direct causal connection between the medically negligent act and the injury sustained. Bruni v. Tatsumi (1976), 46 Ohio St.2d 127. The appropriate standard of care must be proven by expert testimony. Id. at 130. That expert testimony must explain what a medical professional of ordinary skill, care, and diligence in the same medical specialty would do in similar circumstances. Id.
{ } In support of the motion for summary judgment, defendant submitted the affidavit of Kenneth Williams, D.O., a medical professional in defendant's employ. Williams' affidavit provides in relevant part:
{ } " *
{ } "I am familiar with the ailments of Ronald Likes and I am his treating physician at the Richland Correctional Institution.
{ } " *
{ } "In response to his complaints of pain in conjunction with prior documentation of injury, an eletromyogram nerve conduction study was conducted on February 18, 2004 to determine if any injuries or conditions remained present.
{ } " *
{ } "Ronald Likes' complaints of back pain are treated as they occur with non-addictive pain relievers.
{ } "Ronald Likes continues to be monitored for permanent hepatitis C infection.
{ } "He is tested regularly to monitor infection levels. Mr. Likes initial test yielded a count of 862,000.
{ } " *
{ } "Since admission to my care his hepatitis C infection levels have reduced 40 percent.
{ } "Liver tests conducted in October of 2004 and June of 2004 yielded predominately normal results with the exception of slightly elevated ammonia levels.
Page 1 2 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|