 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Peat v. University Hospitals Health System Bedford Medical Center2/3/2005
{ } Defendant-appellant, Dr. Daniel Kranitz, appeals the trial court's granting of the motion of plaintiff-appellee, David Peat, for a new trial. Finding merit to the appeal, we reverse.
{ } In 2002, Peat filed a medical malpractice action against Kranitz alleging negligence for his failure to order a CT scan and timely diagnose a brain abscess. During discovery, Peat deposed Kranitz's expert, Dr. Charles Eckerline. Peat inquired about the publications listed on Eckerline's curriculum vitae, specifically the University of Kentucky, Department of Emergency Medicine, Evaluation and Treatment Guidelines ("Guidelines"). Eckerline claimed that the Guidelines were consistent with the current standard of care for evaluating and treating headaches. However, he stated that he did not rely on the Guidelines and did not find them authoritative.
{ } Prior to trial, Kranitz filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude all testimony regarding the Guidelines. Although the ruling is not in the record, the trial court apparently granted Kranitz's motion.
{ } The matter proceeded to a jury trial, at which Peat attempted to introduce the Guidelines for the purpose of impeaching Eckerline. Again, the trial court denied this request. The jury subsequently found in Kranitz's favor.
{ } Peat filed a motion for new trial, claiming that the trial court committed prejudicial error when it refused to allow him to impeach Eckerline with a learned treatise. The trial court granted Peat's motion and ordered a new trial.
{ } Kranitz appeals the trial court's decision, raising two assignments of error.
New Trial
{ } In his first assignment of error, Kranitz argues that the court's decision to grant a new trial was erroneous as a matter of law. He claims that the Guidelines were inadmissible for impeachment under Evid.R. 706.
{ } Civ. R. 59(A) states:
A new trial may be granted to all or any of the parties and on all or part of the issues upon any of the following grounds:
(1) Irregularity in the proceedings of the court, jury, magistrate, or prevailing party, or any order of the court or magistrate, or abuse of discretion, by which an aggrieved party was prevented from having a fair trial;
(9) Error of law occurring at the trial and brought to the attention of the trial court by the party making the application.
{ } The parties have conflicting opinions as to which standard this court should apply in reviewing this matter. This court has held:
Under Ohio law, the standard of appellate review depends on the basis for the trial court's ruling on the motion for a new trial. Thus, " here a new trial is granted by a trial court, for reasons which involve no exercise of discretion but only a decision on a question of law, the order granting a new trial may be reversed upon the basis of a showing that the decision was erroneous as a matter of law." Rohde v. Farmer (1970), 23 Ohio St.2d 82, 262 N.E.2d 685 paragraph two of the syllabus. By contrast, " here a trial court is authorized to grant a new trial for a reason which requires the exercise of a sound discretion, the order granting a new trial may be reversed only upon a showing of abuse of discretion by the trial court." Id., paragraph one of the syllabus.
Powell v. Schiffauer (Feb. 2, 1989), Cuyahoga App. No. 54930.
{ } In its decision granting a new trial, the trial court concluded that its own evidentiary ruling excluding the Guidelines "may have prejudiced" Peat in cross-examining Eckerline. In applying the Rohde standard, evidentiary rulings are reviewed under an abuse-of-discret
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.
|
|