Ohio State Univ. Wexner Med. Ctr

Medical Malpractice Medical Negligence Wrongful Death Standard of Care Directed Verdict Civ.R. 50 Survivorship Claim Proximate Cause Loss of Consortium. Plaintiff asserted Defendant was negligent in its treatment and care of a pregnant patient and newborn patient, which resulted in the newborn's death. Plaintiff contended, through expert testimony, that Defendant breached the standard of care by improperly supervising, monitoring, and treating a trial of labor after cesarean section patient with a uterine rupture during childbirth. Defendant was granted, pursuant to Civ.R. 50, a partial directed verdict as to informed consent, training of medical residents, loss of earning capacity, funeral and burial expenses, medical bill expenses, and survivorship claims. However, the court found Plaintiff's experts persuasive as it related to the negligence of Defendant in failing to supervise treatment and timely order a cesarean section, which was the proximate cause of the newborn's death. Therefore, the parents of the deceased newborn were entitled to damages for mental anguish and loss of consortium. Accordingly, the court issued judgment in favor of plaintiff in the amount of $2,750,025.00.

Summary judgment Civ.R. 56 personal injury employer workers' compensation immunity. Plaintiff brought this action after suffering an injury while working at defendant's hospital. Plaintiff was employed by a temporary staffing agency and was placed at defendant's hospital by the agency. Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that it was immune from liability under the Workers' Compensation Act. Defendant argued that it qualified as plaintiff's "employer" under the meaning of the Workers' Compensation Act because it supervised plaintiff and controlled plaintiff's work. Plaintiff did not dispute that defendant controlled her work and supervised her, but argued that defendant should not be immune under the Workers' Compensation Act. The court granted summary judgment to defendant. The court found that, under controlling law, defendant was entitled to immunity under the Workers' Compensation Act due to the degree of supervision and control it exercised over plaintiff's work.