Michalek v. Ohio State Univ. Wexner Med. Ctr.
Case Details
- Judge(s)
- Jamison
- Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
- Published
- Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
- appeal from trial verdict; appellate reversal
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Outcome
Appellate court reversed trial court judgment for defendant, finding the greater weight of evidence established proximate cause between the healthcare provider's failure to supervise care and the patient's death.
Excerpt
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.
What This Ruling Means
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
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.
FLSA, Class Certification- Plaintiffs sought conditional certification of an FLSA class pursuant to 29 USC 216(b) based on a clock-in and clock-out rounding policy. The magistrate found that potential plaintiffs were identified and submitted affidavits. However, the magistrate found evidence of a widespread discriminatory practice lacking because defendant did not uniformly enforce the clock-in and clock-out rounding policy and, therefore, that plaintiffs could not prove a violation as to all plaintiffs. Thus, the magistrate recommended denial of conditional class certification.
Appellant challenges the summary-judgment dismissal of her claims under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), her claims under the Minnesota whistleblower act (MWA), and her claims for negligent hiring, supervision, and retention. She also challenges the district court's denial of her motions to compel discovery. Because no genuine issues of material fact exist precluding the grant of summary judgment for respondents and any error related to the motions to compel is harmless, we affirm.
Browse Related
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. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.