 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Schooley v. Ohio Dep't of Rehabilitation and Correction6/21/2005
Magistrate Steven A. Larson
DECISION
{ } On May 12, 2005, defendant, Ohio State University Medical Center (OSUMC), filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Civ.R. 56. On May 27, 2005, plaintiff filed a response. The case is now before the court for a non-oral hearing on the motion for summary judgment. Civ.R. 56(C)and L.C.C.R. 4.
{ } 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 the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (DRC) at the Corrections Medical Center (CMC) at all times relevant to this action. R.C. 5120.16. In his complaint, plaintiff alleges that he underwent hernia surgery on April 30, 2003, at OSUMC; that as a result of the surgery plaintiff developed a complication known as an incarcerated bowel; and that he had to undergo a second surgery on May 5, 2003.
{ } In order to prevail on a claim of medical malpractice or professional negligence, 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, OSUMC relies on the affidavit of Dr. Charles Cook to establish the absence of genuine issues of material fact and to demonstrate that defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Dr. Cook's affidavit provides in relevant part:
{ } " *
{ } "4. That in 2003 there was a contract between the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction pursuant to which affiant provided medical services to prisoners, including William Schooley;
{ } " *.
{ } "6. That, according to OSUMC records, William Schooley underwent surgery on April 30, 2003, and was transferred to the care of the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction.
{ } "7. That on May 4, 2003, William Schooley returned to the OSUMC Emergency Department for a failed hernia repair and incarcerated bowel;
{ } "8. That on May 5, 2003, affiant reoperated on William Schooley and found an incarcerated bowel due to a failed hernia repair. It was repaired, and Mr. Schooley's abdomen was closed using gore-tex mesh. A copy of the operative notes of that surgery on May 5, 2003 is attached;
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.
|
|