Tye-Smiley v. Ohio State Univ. Wexner Med. Ctr.
Case Details
- Judge(s)
- Van Schoyck
- Status
- Published
- Procedural Posture
- Magistrate decision under Ohio Civ.R. 53; wrongful death and survivorship action
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Outcome
Magistrate found plaintiff failed to prove medical malpractice by preponderance of evidence, determining defendant hospital employees did not breach standard of care and plaintiff failed to establish proximate causation between alleged breach and decedent's death from pulmonary embolism.
Excerpt
Wrongful death survivorship medical malpractice standard of care causation magistrate Civ.R. 53. Plaintiff was the surviving spouse of a decedent who suffered a pulmonary embolism six days after he was discharged from defendant's hospital. The pulmonary embolism ultimately led to decedent's death, and plaintiff brought a wrongful death and survivorship action under a theory of medical malpractice. Upon considering the testimony of fact witnesses and expert witnesses, the magistrate determined that plaintiff did not prove medical malpractice by a preponderance of the evidence. The magistrate found that defendant's employees did not breach the standard of care when treating decedent, as their treatment was consistent with decedent's symptoms and test results. The magistrate further found that plaintiff failed to prove that the alleged breach of the standard of care—the failure to order an ultrasound to test for deep vein thrombosis—proximately caused decedent's death. The magistrate found insufficient evidence to establish that deep vein thrombosis would have been detected at any point during decedent's hospitalization.
Similar Rulings
Motion for Summary Judgment, Employment, Age Discrimination, Sex Discrimination. No genuine issues as to any material fact existed regarding plaintiff's claims for age or sex discrimination. Defendant presented legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for plaintiff's termination. Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case by presenting facts which demonstrated that defendant's reasoning for termination of plaintiff's employment was pretextual. Defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted.
The trial court erred in entering judgment for defendant because the greater weight of competent, credible evidence regarding proximate cause established that the decedent's death was the natural and probable consequence of defendant's employee's failure to supervise the decedent's care.
Negligence liability duty open and obvious causation comparative negligence damages parental consortium magistrate. Plaintiff brought this negligence action after suffering injuries on Defendant's premises. Plaintiff's son also asserted a claim for the loss of parental consortium. Plaintiff suffered a puncture injury to her leg after tripping on a curb and landing on a metal bolt protruding from a mulched area in Defendant's parking lot. The magistrate found that Defendant owed a duty of care to Plaintiff as an invitee. Plaintiff did not exceed the scope of her invitation by walking through a mulched area of the parking lot, because the area was obviously worn down by pedestrian use and Defendant's employees walked through the mulched area. Defendant did not breach a duty of care to Plaintiff with respect to the curb, because the danger of the curb should have been open and obvious to the Plaintiff. However, Defendant did breach a duty of care with respect to the protruding bolt, because Defendant knew or should have known it presented a danger. Defendant's breach of care was a proximate cause of Plaintiff's injury. However, Plaintiff's comparative negligence warranted a 50 percent reduction of any award for damages. The magistrate determined that Plaintiff was entitled to damages for medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering. The magistrate also determined Plaintiff's son was entitled to damages for the loss of parental consortium.
<p>Appeal from the District Court of Richland county; Allen, J.</p> <p>Action under the statute to recover damages caused by death by wrongful act. Verdict directed in favor of defendant. Plaintiff appeals.</p> <p>This is an action brought under the statute by Louis Ruehl, the father of, and administrator of the estate of, Louis Ruehl, Jr., deceased, for and on behalf of the father and mother and sisters of the deceased, to recover damages for the death of the said Louis Ruehl, Jr., alleged to have been occasioned by the defendant by carelessly and negligently leaving a telephone' post hole “without placing any guards over or above the same, and without taking any precaution of any kind to avoid.” the accident. The evidence is to the effect that on or about the 1st day of April, 1910, one L. J. Christenson was president and manager of the defendant telephone company; that about such time the company arranged to extend its line past the house of the plaintiff and to put a telephone therein; that the dwelling house of the plaintiff stood about 4 rods from the east end of the section line, on which was laid out a traveled highway; that before the holes in which the telephone poles were to be set were dug, defendant telephone company had caused the necessary poles to be hauled and placed along the route of the proposed extension, at about the places where the same were to be set, and had caused the places where it was proposed to have the holes dug marked or designated by sticks or broken lath; that on or about the 1st day of April, 1910, Christenson, on behalf of the telephone company, employed one Frank Zimmerman to dig a line of post holes along the said extension, and agreed to pay him 12-J cents for each hole; that Christenson told said Zimmerman what to do, and supplied him with the tools, and told him how to do the work; that the post holes were to be 4|- feet deep, and that this depth was directed by Christenson; that the spade used by Zimmerman was given to him
Facing something similar at work?
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.