 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Gentile v. Youngstown Osteopathic Hospital6/6/2005
JUDGMENT: Reversed and Remanded.
JUDGES: Hon. Mary DeGenaro Hon. Gene Donofrio Hon. Cheryl L. Waite
{ } This timely appeal comes for consideration upon the record in the trial court, the parties' briefs, and their oral arguments before this court. Plaintiffs-Appellants, Leonard and Josephine Gentile, appeal the decision of the Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas that granted summary judgment to Defendants-Appellees, Youngstown Osteopathic Hospital and Dr. Abdul Shamsuddin. The Gentiles argue that the trial court erred when granting summary judgment to Appellees since it did not provide the Gentiles with an adequate opportunity to respond to the motion.
{ } The procedures in Civ.R. 56 require that a trial court notify the parties when it will rule on a motion for summary judgment so the parties can timely file responses to motions for summary judgment. This notice can be made in explicit judgment entries or in local rules. In this case, the trial court never explicitly set deadlines and granted a continuance, so the timetable in the local rules no longer applied. Thus, the trial court denied the Gentiles a fair opportunity to be heard when it granted Appellees' motion for summary judgment. The trial court's decision is reversed and this matter is remanded for further proceedings.
Facts
{ } The only facts relevant to this appeal are procedural facts. On July 21, 1999, the Gentiles filed a complaint against both Shamsuddin and the Hospital. It alleged that Shamsuddin committed medical malpractice and that the Hospital was jointly and severally liable for Shamsuddin's negligence. Each defendant filed a separate answer to the complaint and the parties began discovery. However, on March 14, 2000, the Hospital filed a notice of stay, notifying both the trial court and the other parties that it had filed for bankruptcy . The trial court ordered that the proceedings be stayed on March 20, 2000.
{ } The record does not contain any indication when the stay was lifted, but on January 21, 2003, Appellees filed a joint motion for summary judgment. That motion was based on the claim that the Gentiles failed to identify an expert to support their malpractice action.
{ } The Gentiles moved for additional time to respond to the motion on February 21, 2003, and were granted that extension. They then filed their response to the motion on March 25, 2003. In that response, the Gentiles did not argue that they had located an expert to support their claim. Rather, they argued that they had insufficient time to complete discovery due to the stay and requested that the trial court not rule on the pending motion until discovery could be completed. The trial court granted the Gentiles' request on April 23, 2003, and stated that all deadlines would be established at a May 19, 2003, pretrial conference.
{ } On May 19, 2003, the trial court journalized a pretrial order. But that order failed to set any new deadlines. Instead, the trial court checked a box indicating, "Prior order remains in effect. All dates, including trial, remain as is," and set a final pretrial for December 17, 2003. On December 17, 2003, the trial court journalized another pretrial order. This one checked the box next to the same line and set the matter for a jury trial on January 20, 2004. The case was subsequently continued to January 18, 2005.
{ } On April 5, 2004, Appellees filed a motion for the court to rule on its pending motion for summary judgment. The trial court signed a judgment entry on Friday, April 16, 2004, granting summary judgment to Appellees. That judgment entry was journalized on Monday, April 19, 2004. The Gentiles did not
Page 1 2 3 4 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|