Browning V Burt, 66 Ohio St.3d 544 (Ohio 1993)

Westlaw Delivery Summary Report for CROTTY,PATRICK Date/Time of Request: Client Identifier: Database: Citation Text: Lines: Documents:
Images: Monday, July 6, 2009 11:17 Central PATRICK CROTTY OH-CS 613 N.E.2d 993 1434 1 0
The material accompanying this summary is subject to copyright. Usage is governed by contract with Thomson Reuters, West and their affiliates.
613 N.E.2d 993 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY 66 Ohio St.3d 544, 613 N.E.2d 993, 62 USLW 2116, 1993 -Ohio- 178 (Cite as: 66 Ohio St.3d 544, 613 N.E.2d 993)
Page 1
West Headnotes Supreme Court of Ohio. BROWNING et al., Appellees, v. BURT; Blue et al., Appellants. MITCHELL, Appellee, v. BURT; St. Elizabeth Medical Center, Appellant. Nos. 91-2079, 91-2121. Submitted Jan. 20, 1993. Decided June 30, 1993. Patients brought actions alleging medical malpractice in connection with vaginal reconstruction surgery and alleging hospital's negligent credentialing of physicians. The Court of Common Pleas, Montgomery County, entered summary judgment in favor of hospital and one physician. Patients appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed with respect to claim against physician, but reversed summary judgment in favor of hospital. Motions to certify record were allowed, and cases were consolidated. The Supreme Court, Douglas, J., held that: (1) action against hospital for negligent credentialing of physician is subject to two-year statute of limitations applicable to action for bodily injury; (2) statute of limitations commences to run when victim knows or should have discovered that he or she was injured as result of hospital's negligent credentialing procedures or practices; and (3) peer review statute does not provide hospital with immunity from liability for negligence in granting and/or continuing staff privileges of incompetent physician. Affirmed. Moyer, C.J., concurred in part, dissented in part, and filed opinion in which Deborah L. Cook, J., sitting by assignment, concurred. Wright, J., concurred in part, dissented in part, and filed opinion. [1] Limitation of Actions 241 55(3)
241 Limitation of Actions 241II Computation of Period of Limitation 241II(A) Accrual of Right of Action or Defense 241k55 Torts 241k55(3) k. Negligence in Performance of Professional Services. Most Cited Cases Claims against hospital for negligent credentialing of physicians were not for medical malpractice and, therefore, were not governed by cognizable event test for commencing statute of limitations for medical malpractice action. R.C. 2305.11(B)(1). [2] Health 198H 656
198H Health 198HV Malpractice, Negligence, or Breach of Duty 198HV(C) Particular Procedures 198Hk655 Hospitals in General 198Hk656 k. In General. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 204k7 Hospitals) Hospital does not practice medicine and is incapable of committing malpractice. [3] Health 198H 811
198H Health 198HV Malpractice, Negligence, or Breach of Duty 198HV(G) Actions and Proceedings 198Hk811 k. Limitations; Time Requirements. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 204k8 Hospitals) Hospital negligence arising out of care of patient is medical claim within meaning of statute of limitations requiring action upon medical claim to be commenced within one year. R.C. 2305.11(B)(1), (D)(3).
2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Page 2
[4] Health 198H
811
198H Health 198HV Malpractice, Negligence, or Breach of Duty 198HV(G) Actions and Proceedings 198Hk811 k. Limitations; Time Requirements. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 204k8 Hospitals) Care as used in statute of limitations requiring action upon medical claim to be commenced within one year and defining medical claim as claim arising out of medical care means prevention or alleviation of physical or mental defect or illness. R.C. 2305.11(B)(1), (D)(3). [5] Health 198H 811
tice by the physician, physician's ultimate act of medical malpractice is factually and legally severable and distinct from hospital's acts or omissions in negligently credentialing physician with staff membership or professional privileges. [7] Health 198H 811
198H Health 198HV Malpractice, Negligence, or Breach of Duty 198HV(G) Actions and Proceedings 198Hk811 k. Limitations; Time Requirements. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 204k8 Hospitals) Negligent credentialing of physician by hospital is not medical diagnosis, care, or treatment within meaning of statute of limitations requiring action upon medical claim to be commenced within one year and defining medical claim as claim arising out of medical diagnosis, care, or treatment. R.C. 2305.11(B)(1), (D)(3). [6] Health 198H 660
198H Health 198HV Malpractice, Negligence, or Breach of Duty 198HV(G) Actions and Proceedings 198Hk811 k. Limitations; Time Requirements. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 204k8 Hospitals) Hospital's negligent credentialing of physician is not malpractice and does not give rise to medical claim within meaning of statute of limitations requiring action upon medical claim to be commenced within one year. R.C. 2305.11(B)(1). [8] Health 198H 811
198H Health 198HV Malpractice, Negligence, or Breach of Duty 198HV(G) Actions and Proceedings 198Hk811 k. Limitations; Time Requirements. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 204k8 Hospitals) Action against hospital for bodily injury arising out of negligent credentialing of physician is subject to two-year limitations period for action for bodily injury. R.C. 2305.10. [9] Limitation of Actions 241 55(4)
198H Health 198HV Malpractice, Negligence, or Breach of Duty 198HV(C) Particular Procedures 198Hk655 Hospitals in General 198Hk660 k. Negligent Hiring or Supervision. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 204k7 Hospitals) While acts or omissions of hospital in granting and/ or continuing staff privileges to incompetent physician may ultimately lead to act of medical malprac-
241 Limitation of Actions 241II Computation of Period of Limitation 241II(A) Accrual of Right of Action or Defense 241k55 Torts 241k55(4) k. Injuries to Person. Most Cited Cases Arose within meaning of statute of limitations requiring action for bodily injury to be brought within
Page 3
two years after cause of action arose is synonymous with accrued within meaning of statute of limitations requiring action upon medical claim to be commenced within one year after action accrued. R.C. 2305.10, 2305.11(B)(1). [10] Limitation of Actions 241 95(3)
ing arises, and statute of limitations begins to run, when victim knows or should have discovered that he or she was injured as result of hospital's negligent credentialing procedures or practices. R.C. 2305.10. [13] Limitation of Actions 241 95(3)
241 Limitation of Actions 241II Computation of Period of Limitation 241II(F) Ignorance, Mistake, Trust, Fraud, and Concealment or Discovery of Cause of Action 241k95 Ignorance of Cause of Action 241k95(3) k. Nature of Harm or Damage, in General. Most Cited Cases Discovery rule applies to accrual of claim alleging hospital negligence in credentialing physician. R.C. 2305.10. [11] Limitation of Actions 241 95(3)
241 Limitation of Actions 241II Computation of Period of Limitation 241II(F) Ignorance, Mistake, Trust, Fraud, and Concealment or Discovery of Cause of Action 241k95 Ignorance of Cause of Action 241k95(3) k. Nature of Harm or Damage, in General. Most Cited Cases Facts or events which might trigger running of statute of limitations for medical malpractice claims against physician do not necessarily commence running of statute of limitations on claims against hospital for hospital negligence unrelated to medical diagnosis, care, or treatment of person. R.C. 2305.10, 2305.11(B)(1). [12] Limitation of Actions 241 95(3)
241 Limitation of Actions 241II Computation of Period of Limitation 241II(F) Ignorance, Mistake, Trust, Fraud, and Concealment or Discovery of Cause of Action 241k95 Ignorance of Cause of Action 241k95(3) k. Nature of Harm or Damage, in General. Most Cited Cases Television program making patients aware that physician's ex-patients suffered from surgical abnormalities similar to their own was alerting event commencing statute of limitations applicable to action alleging hospital's negligent credentialing of physician, even though patients signed special consent form related to physician; until watching television show, patients did not have actual or constructive knowledge that hospital had done something wrong in granting or continuing privileges. R.C. 2305.10. [14] Limitation of Actions 241 95(3)
241 Limitation of Actions 241II Computation of Period of Limitation 241II(F) Ignorance, Mistake, Trust, Fraud, and Concealment or Discovery of Cause of Action 241k95 Ignorance of Cause of Action 241k95(3) k. Nature of Harm or Damage, in General. Most Cited Cases Cause of action for hospital's negligent credential-
241 Limitation of Actions 241II Computation of Period of Limitation 241II(F) Ignorance, Mistake, Trust, Fraud, and Concealment or Discovery of Cause of Action 241k95 Ignorance of Cause of Action 241k95(3) k. Nature of Harm or Damage, in General. Most Cited Cases Statute of limitations applicable to claim for hospital's negligent credentialing of physician begins to run if patient discovers or, through exercise of reasonable diligence, should have discovered some definitive information that would reasonably warrant investigation of hospital's credentialing practices. R.C. 2305.10. [15] Limitation of Actions 241 95(3)
Page 4
241 Limitation of Actions 241II Computation of Period of Limitation 241II(F) Ignorance, Mistake, Trust, Fraud, and Concealment or Discovery of Cause of Action 241k95 Ignorance of Cause of Action 241k95(3) k. Nature of Harm or Damage, in General. Most Cited Cases Discovery of physician's medical malpractice does not, in itself, constitute alerting event commencing statute of limitations applicable to claim for hospital's negligent credentialing of physician. R.C. 2305.10. [16] Health 198H 274
1. Hospital negligence arising out of the care of a patient is a medical claim within the meaning of R.C. 2305.11(D)(3) and is subject to the period of limitations set forth in R.C. 2305.11(B)(1). Care as used in R.C. 2305.11(D)(3) is the prevention or alleviation of a physical or mental defect or illness. 2. Negligent credentialing of a physician by a hospital is not medical diagnosis, care, or treatment within the meaning of R.C. 2305.11. **996 *545 3. An action against a hospital for bodily injury arising out of the negligent credentialing of a physician is subject to the two-year limitations period set forth in R.C. 2305.10. 4. The period of limitations set forth in R.C. 2305.10 commences to run when the victim knows or should have discovered that he or she was injured as a result of the hospital's negligent credentialing procedures or practices. 5. R.C. 2305.25 does not provide a hospital with immunity from liability for the hospital's negligence in granting and/or continuing the staff privileges of an incompetent physician. The two cases before us today are representative of many actions filed in Montgomery County relating to the drastically unconventional surgical practices of Dr. James C. Burt during his former service at St. Elizabeth Medical Center (SEMC) in Dayton. Case No. 91-2079 involves the timeliness of claims asserted against SEMC for its alleged negligence in having granted and/or continued the staff membership or professional privileges of Dr. Burt and another former member of the SEMC medical staff, FN1 Dr. Max Blue, Jr. This case also includes a claim for loss of consortium. Case No. 91-2121 involves the timeliness of a negligence action against SEMC for continuing Dr. Burt's staff membership or professional privileges at the hospital. The two cases have been consolidated sua sponte for decision. See (1992), 62 Ohio St.3d 1502, 583 N.E.2d 973.
198H Health 198HI Regulation in General 198HI(C) Institutions and Facilities 198Hk268 Staff Privileges and Peer Review 198Hk274 k. Liability or Immunity. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 204k7 Hospitals) Peer review statute immunizing hospital from liability for acts, omissions, decisions, or other conduct within scope of functions of committee does not provide hospital with immunity from liability for its negligence in granting and/or continuing staff privileges of incompetent physician. R.C. 2305.25. [17] Health 198H 820
198H Health 198HV Malpractice, Negligence, or Breach of Duty 198HV(G) Actions and Proceedings 198Hk815 Evidence 198Hk820 k. Admissibility. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 204k8 Hospitals) Peer review statutes do not prohibit admission of evidence needed for hospital to defend itself against claims for negligent peer review. R.C. 1742.141, 2305.25, 2305.251. *544 **995 Syllabus by the Court
Page 5
FN1. These claims are referred to by the parties as claims for negligent credentialing. Case No. 91-2079 On April 17, 1989, Jimmie Dean Browning (Browning) and her husband, Lawrence Browning, appellees, filed a complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County against Dr. Burt and appellants, SEMC and Dr. Blue. Browning alleged that in February 1982, Drs. Burt and Blue negligently, willfully and wantonly performed unnecessary and experimental vaginal reconstruction surgery upon her without her consent, restructuring her *546 genital organs to an unnatural and bizarre anatomical configuration. Browning alleged that she was advised by Blue that the surgery was necessary to treat a bladder condition. Browning also alleged that Blue negligently performed a total of sixteen unnecessary surgeries upon her between January 1981 and August 1986. Browning asserted that SEMC negligently, intentionally, and willfully permitted Drs. Burt and Blue to perform the unnecessary and experimental surgeries at SEMC by failing to provide adequate peer review of Drs. Burt and Blue, and by failing to protect Browning from known incompetent medical care. In her complaint, Browning sought recovery against Drs. Burt and Blue for medical malpractice. She sought recovery against SEMC for its alleged negligence in granting and/or continuing the staff membership or professional privileges of Drs. Burt and Blue. Lawrence Browning sought recovery against all defendants for loss of consortium. Dr. Burt failed to respond to the complaint and, upon motion, appellees obtained a default judgment FN2 against him. SEMC and Dr. Blue, appellants, answered the complaint and asserted defenses based upon the applicable statute of limitations. Appellants then deposed Browning in July 1989 for purposes of developing their statute of limitations defenses. The following relevant matters can be gleaned from Browning's deposition testimony.
FN2. A hearing for the assessment of damages was held in abeyance pending further court order. In 1980, Browning sought treatment from Dr. Blue, a urologist, for bladder infections and difficulties she experienced voiding urine. Blue performed surgery upon Browning, but Browning's condition did not improve. By 1982, Browning began complaining of constant bladder pain. She also complained of pain she experienced during sexual relations with her husband. Thus, in February 1982, Blue referred her to Dr. Burt for an exploratory pelvic laparotomy with lysis and vaginoplasty. **997 Dr. Burt met with Browning prior to surgery. Burt explained to Browning that the pain she experienced during sexual relations was caused by her husband's penis striking her bladder. Burt explained that Drs. Burt and Blue would perform surgery to place her bladder upon a pedestal, and that this procedure would correct her problems voiding urine and alleviate the pain she suffered during intercourse. Burt also indicated that he would do some cosmetic things to improve Browning's sex life. With respect to this special surgical procedure Burt performed at SEMC, a form letter was required by SEMC to be submitted to Burt's patients prior to surgery. A copy of the letter bearing Browning's signature (and a witness signature dated February 5, 1982) was presented by SEMC at Browning's FN3 *547 deposition. Browning testified that she could not recall having ever seen the letter. The form letter, which bears the SEMC letterhead, states: FN3. It is undisputed that the letter bearing Browning's signature appeared in her hospital records at SEMC. Dear Patient: The Executive Committee of the Medical Staff of St. Elizabeth Medical Center wishes to inform you that the female coital area reconstruction surgery
Page 6
you are about to undergo is: 1. Not documented by ordinary standards of scientific reporting and publication. 2. Not a generally accepted procedure. 3. As yet not duplicated by other investigators. 4. Detailed only in non-scientific literature. You should be informed that the Executive Committee of the Medical Staff considers the aforementioned procedure an unproven, non-standard pracFN4 tice of gynecology. FN4. An identical form letter appears in the record in case No. 91-2121. Answers to interrogatories in that case reveal that this special Burt consent form was used by SEMC beginning in 1979 in connection with Dr. Burt's vaginal reconstruction surgeries. The forms were provided to Burt by SEMC and were required to be completed before or at the time of hospital admission. Burt began conducting vaginal reconstruction surgeries at SEMC in 1969. Drs. Burt and Blue performed vaginal reconstruction surgery upon Browning at SEMC in February 1982. Browning testified at the deposition that she underwent the surgery explained to her by Burt to FN5 correct her painful bladder condition. FN5. The parties to this appeal agree that the surgery actually performed upon Browning consisted of an exploratory pelvic laparotomy, vaginal reconstruction, circumcision of the clitoris and insertion of a urinary catheter. The vaginal reconstruction consisted of, among other things, a redirection and elongation of her vagina. In her deposition, Browning claimed that she was not fully informed of the true nature of the surgery, although she admitted that her signature appeared on a consent form indicating that the surgical procedure Pelvic
Laparotomy, Vaginal Reconstruction had been explained to her satisfaction. Browning was required to employ an indwelling urinary catheter for six months following the reconstruction surgery. When the catheter was removed by Dr. Burt, Browning could not void properly and became obstructed. The obstruction caused extreme pain and vomiting and subsequent hospitalization at SEMC. Browning testified that after her February 1982 love surgery, she continued to suffer from bladder infections and developed problems with urinary incontinence. Her bladder infections after the surgery *548 were worse (more frequent) than before. Additionally, following the surgery, Browning could not engage in sexual relations without extreme pain and difficulties. At some point, she also began to develop severe kidney problems, for which Dr. Blue provided treatment. Browning was last treated by Dr. Burt sometime in 1983. Burt left Browning a message that he was leaving town and that she need not see him anymore. Browning continued her treatment at SEMC with Dr. Blue. Browning underwent a myriad of additional surgeries performed by Dr. Blue at SEMC between 1982 and 1986. After each surgery, Dr. Blue told Browning that after the next surgery, she would be just fine. **998 The final surgery performed by Blue occurred on August 22, 1986, when he removed Browning's right kidney. However, none of these surgeries improved Browning's condition. Indeed, Browning stated that her condition worsened. She continued to suffer bladder infections, difficulties voiding, problems during sexual intercourse, and periods of urinary incontinence. She also developed bowel problems sometime during her treatment with Burt and/or Blue. After the August 22, 1986 surgery, Browning began experiencing right flank pain, and her mental health deteriorated. When her problems persisted, Browning arranged to be examined by Dr. Montague, a urologist, at the Cleveland Clinic. Browning went to see Montague for an explanation why her medical condition did
Page 7
not improve following Dr. Blue's August 1986 surgery. Montague examined Browning in June 1987 and, according to Browning: A. He told me that I was voiding pretty good and that he thought that I should go for some counseling because I wasn't willing to accept my condition or change my life-style or something. * * * Q. What did you tell Dr. Montague? A. I told him that I thought that something was wrong, you know, from the surgery I'd had, that I didn't get over it and when he [Blue] took my kidney out, I thought I wouldn't have any more problems. In June or July 1987, Montague sent a report of his examination to Browning and Blue. According to Browning, the report indicated there was a flaw in her surgery. Browning, who underwent approximately sixteen surgeries, did not know the surgery to which Dr. Montague was referring. She never questioned Montague about the report. Sometime between July and August 1987 (but after receiving the report from Cleveland Clinic), Browning confronted Dr. Blue in Blue's office. Browning told Blue that she thought Blue had done a malpractice operation because her medical condition was not improving. She also told Blue that *549 before Dr. Burt left town in 1983, Burt had told Browning that half of Browning's prior surgeries were malpractice. Browning had had a number of surgeries before she last saw Burt in 1983 (including a number of surgeries not performed by Burt or Blue), but Browning assumed that Burt was referring to Blue's prior surgeries. Browning said that during the confrontation at Blue's office, Blue denied any wrongdoing and recommended that she see a psychiatrist. At Blue's suggestion, Browning entered SEMC for psychiatric treatment in August 1987 under the care of Dr. Patwa. According to Browning, Blue visited her at the hospital because he wanted me to forget
everything that letter said from Cleveland Clinic and I told him he was a liar. Blue tried to prescribe medication for Browning during this time, but Dr. Patwa would not allow it. Browning stated in her deposition that she began to suspect in August 1987 that Dr. Blue may have committed malpractice upon her. Browning never returned to see Dr. Blue for treatment after her August 1987 hospitalization. Browning told Dr. Patwa in August or September 1987 that Dr. Blue had ruined her life because Blue removed her kidney and she was not well, and nevFN6 er would be well. FN6. Browning testified at the deposition that she continues to suffer from urinary incontinence, abdominal flank pain, severe bowel problems, severe anxiety and depression, chronic back pain, and pain during sexual intercourse to the point that she is virtually unable to participate in sexual relations with her husband. She testified that she was told by a gynecologist two months before the deposition that the surgery performed upon her could not be corrected, and that Dr. Burt had cut away everything. On September 29, 1989, SEMC filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that appellees' claims against SEMC, all of which arose from SEMC's alleged negligent credentialing of Drs. Burt and Blue, were time-barred by the one-year statute of limitations set forth in R.C. 2305.11(B)(1). Relying upon portions of the deposition testimony, SEMC argued, citing **999Allenius v. Thomas (1989), 42 Ohio St.3d 131, 538 N.E.2d 93, that the statute began to run by August 1987 at the latest when cognizable events occurred which should have led Browning to believe that her condition was related to her previous treatments with Burt and Blue, and which should have alerted Browning of the need to pursue her remedies. On November 3, 1989, Blue moved for summary judgment on Browning's malpractice claim and Lawrence Browning's consortium claim. For reasons similar to those advanced by SEMC,
Page 8
Blue argued that appellees' claims against him were barred by R.C. 2305.11(B)(1). Appellees responded to each motion for summary judgment and submitted an affidavit by Browning. The affidavit submitted in response to SEMC's *550 motion (which is similar to the one submitted in response to Blue's motion) provides, in part: I saw the television program West 57th Street on October 30, 1988. I had the same symptoms as Dr. Burt's patients, which were on that show, complained of. I had surgery performed by Dr. Burt and Dr. Blue, and I wanted to know whether they had performed experimental surgery on me. *** I did not know or believe prior to seeing the West 57th Street program, that the surgeries performed on me by Dr. Blue and Dr. Burt were unnecessary and/or experimental. The trial court granted the motions for summary judgment and dismissed the action against SEMC FN7 and Blue. The trial court held that appellees' claims accrued in August 1987 at the latest when Browning knew of Dr. Montague's report, knew of the continued and/or worsened nature of her condition, and told Blue that Blue had committed a malpractice operation. The trial court held that under Allenius, supra, appellees were placed on notice (by a cognizable event) in August 1987 to pursue any possible claims against SEMC and Blue, and because appellees did not do so within the oneyear period of limitation, R.C. 2305.11 barred the action. By entry dated April 4, 1990, the trial court expressly determined that there was no just cause for delay of an appeal from the dismissals of the action against SEMC and Blue, leaving only the damages on appellees' default judgment against Dr. Burt to be adjudicated. FN7. The trial court granted SEMC's motion by decision dated December 5, 1989.
All claims against SEMC were dismissed by entry dated January 3, 1990. The trial court granted Blue's motion by decision dated February 2, 1990, and the action against Blue was dismissed on March 6, 1990. The trial court's decisions granting SEMC's motion and Blue's motion are nearly identical. On appeal, the court of appeals reversed the judgment of the trial court with respect to the dismissal of appellees' claims against SEMC. Applying the R.C. 2305.11(B)(1) statute of limitations, and the cognizable event test of Allenius, the court of appeals held that there was no evidence that appellees knew or should have known, prior to viewing the West 57th television program, that Browning may have been injured as a result of SEMC's negligence in credentialing Drs. Burt and Blue. Accordingly, the court of appeals held that summary judgment was inappropriate, as appellees' causes of action against SEMC may not have accrued until October 1988, and, thus, *551 the action against SEMC (commenced in April 1989) may have been timely filed. The court of appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court with respect to the dismissal of Browning's malpractice claim against Blue, finding that the cause of action accrued in August 1987 at the latest when Browning knew or should have known that she may have been the victim of medical malpractice. However, the court of appeals reversed the judgment of the trial court with respect to the dismissal of Lawrence Browning's consortium claim against Blue, finding that Lawrence's claim was governed by the four-year statute of limitations set forth in R.C. 2305.09. Case No. 91-2121 Coney Mitchell, appellee, underwent vaginal reconstruction surgery performed**1000 by Dr. Burt at SEMC in January 1985. Prior to surgery, Mitchell suffered from urinary incontinence, bladder infections, bladder and pelvic pain, vaginal in-
Page 9
fections, bowel problems, and painful sexual intercourse. Before surgery, Burt explained to Mitchell that her bladder was being bruised during sexual relations with her husband, and that surgery was necessary to lift her bladder out of the way. Burt told Mitchell that the surgical procedure would alleviate her pelvic pain and correct her bladder problems. Mitchell signed a consent form for Anterior Colporrhaphy, Vaginal Reconstruction, Cystoscopy. She also apparently signed the special form letter required by SEMC for Burt's vaginal reconFN8 struction surgeries. FN8. The contents of the form letter appear in the facts in case No. 91-2079,supra. It is undisputed that the letter bearing Mitchell's signature appeared in her hospital file at SEMC. Mitchell's condition worsened within a short time FN9 after the surgery. When the catheter was removed, Mitchell lost all bladder control. Her bladder pain and vaginal infections continued. She also began to experience severe bowel problems and felt like everything inside of her was tearing loose. She stayed sick, and her condition never improved. FN9. We surmise from the record that the procedure Mitchell underwent was similar to the surgery performed upon Browning, which included, among other things, vaginal redirection and elongation, insertion of a urinary catheter, and a general restructuring of body organs, muscle and tissue. See fn. 5, supra. At Dr. Burt's urging, Mitchell and her husband attempted to resume sexual relations approximately four months after the reconstruction surgery. However, penetration was impossible and Mitchell began bleeding profusely. At this time, Mitchell examined her vagina and noticed that it had been sewn up. She immediately contacted Burt, who indicated that everything was normal, and that she needed time to heal. Burt instructed Mitchell not to
see *552 any other doctor. He told Mitchell that any other doctor could cause her to bleed to death. Thus, Mitchell continued treatments with Dr. Burt. During subsequent treatments, Burt continually insisted that Mitchell could resume normal sexual relations with her husband. However, Mitchell maintained that this was not possible. At some point, Burt met with Mitchell's husband and told him that Mitchell would get better, and he (Mitchell's husband) should not take no for an answer. Eventually, in 1987, Mitchell had a heated argument with Burt and decided to terminate her treatment with him. Mitchell has never been able to resume sexual relations with her husband. In October 1988, Mitchell viewed the West 57th television program regarding Dr. Burt's surgical practices. She realized that her symptoms were the same as those discussed by Burt's ex-patients appearing on the show. Thus, Mitchell contacted a doctor, Dr. Busacco, whose name she obtained from watching the program. Mitchell was examined by Busacco in December 1988. Busacco performed whatever corrective surgery was possible-reinforcing the rectum, reconstructing the vagina, removing pockets of urine which had been collecting bacteria within the urinary system-but Busacco informed Mitchell that she had been surgically mutilated. Mitchell commenced suit on December 14, 1988 against Dr. Burt and appellant, SEMC. Mitchell alleged that Burt negligently and fraudulently performed inappropriate, unnecessary and experimental surgery upon her without her knowledge and consent. Mitchell alleged that SEMC knew of Burt's surgical practices and failed to protect her from a known incompetent physician. Mitchell also claimed that SEMC was negligent in failing to provide adequate peer review of Dr. Burt. Mitchell sought recovery from Dr. Burt for medical malpractice. She sought recovery from SEMC for its alleged negligence in granting and continuing hospital privileges to Dr. Burt.
Page 10
SEMC responded to the complaint and eventually moved for summary judgment on the basis of the R.C. 2305.11(B)(1) statute of limitations. Burt failed to answer **1001 (or defend against) the claim of medical malpractice. The trial court granted SEMC's motion for summary judgment. In its decision, the trial court noted that SEMC and Mitchell apparently assumed that all claims against SEMC were medical claims within the meaning of R.C. 2305.11(B)(1) and (D)(3). Applying Allenius, supra, the trial court held that the R.C. 2305.11(B)(1) period of limitations began to run in December 1985 at the latest. However, it is apparent that the trial court was unsure whether R.C. 2305.11(B)(1) was applicable. In dismissing the action against SEMC, the trial court stated, in part: *553 The Court finds that an action upon a medical claim against St. Elizabeth Medical Center was not commenced within one year after the action accrued and therefore under R.C. 2305.11(B)(1) the claims should be DISMISSED. The Court further finds that the claims of the Plaintiff for bodily injury not related to a medical claim must be DISMISSED because the action was not brought within the two years after the cause thereof arose pursuant to R.C. 2305.10. This case was filed December 14, 1988. Subsequently, the trial court entered a default judgment against Burt and in favor of Mitchell. By separate entry, the trial court expressly determined that there was no just cause for delay of an appeal from the dismissal of the action against SEMC. On appeal, the court of appeals reversed the judgment of the trial court. The court of appeals determined that there was nothing in the record to suggest that Mitchell should have discovered the alleged negligence of SEMC prior to viewing the West 57th television program in October 1988. Accordingly, the court of appeals, relying on its decision in the Browning case, held that summary judgment was not appropriate.
The two cases, having been consolidated, are now before this court pursuant to the allowance of motions to certify the record. Spangenberg, Shibley, Traci, Lancione & Liber, John G. Lancione, John D. Liber and Peter H. Weinberger, Cleveland, for appellees Browning in case No. 91-2079 and appellee Mitchell in case No. 91-2121. Freund, Freeze & Arnold, Neil F. Freund and Robert N. Snyder, Dayton, for appellant Max Blue, Jr., M.D., in case No. 91-2079. Dinsmore & Shohl, Frank C. Woodside III, John E. Schlosser and K.C. Green, Cincinnati, for appellant St. Elizabeth Medical Center in case Nos. 91-2079 and 91-2121. Bricker & Eckler, James J. Hughes and Catherine M. Ballard, Columbus, urging reversal for amicus curiae, Ohio Hosp. Ass'n, in case Nos. 91-2079 and 91-2121. DOUGLAS, Justice. DOUGLAS, J. The narrow issue in these consolidated cases is whether the negligent credentialing causes of action against SEMC for granting and continuing staff privileges to Dr. Burt (and Dr. Blue in case No. 91-2079) were timely filed pursuant to the applicable statute of limitations. Case No. 91-2079 involves additional issues concerning the court of appeals' reinstatement*554 of Lawrence Browning's consortium claim against Dr. Blue and FN10 SEMC. Given the procedural disposition of these cases, the pertinent facts (where applicable) must be construed in a light most favorable to appellees who opposed the motions for summary judgment at the trial court level. See Civ.R. 56. FN10. The malpractice of Dr. Burt has been established in both cases by virtue of the default judgments entered against him even if the causes of action for malpractice against Dr. Burt were untimely filed. Browning did not appeal to this court from
Page 11
the determination that her malpractice action against Dr. Blue was untimely filed and, thus, the judgment of the court of appeals on that issue is final. I Hospital Liability/Negligent Credentialing SEMC appeals in both cases, urging that the claims asserted against it for negligent credentialing are time-barred by R.C. 2305.11(B)(1). Specifically, SEMC suggests that the court of appeals erred in determining **1002 that discovery (by appellees Mitchell and Browning) of the hospital's negligence was necessary to commence the running of the R.C. 2305.11(B)(1) period of limitations on the negligent credentialing claims. SEMC asserts that the cognizable events triggering the running of the statute of limitations on Mitchell's and Browning's medical malpractice claims against the doctor(s) were sufficient to commence the running of the period of limitations on their negligent credentialing causes of action against the hospital. In support of its position, SEMC cites Allenius, supra, and a number of our other cases such as Oliver v. Kaiser Community Health Found.(1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 111, 5 OBR 247, 449 N.E.2d 438, Richards v. St. Thomas Hosp. (1986), 24 Ohio St.3d 27, 24 OBR 71, 492 N.E.2d 821, Hoffman v. Davidson (1987), 31 Ohio St.3d 60, 31 OBR 165, 508 N.E.2d 958, Hershberger v. Akron City Hosp. (1987), 34 Ohio St.3d 1, 516 N.E.2d 204, and Flowers v. Walker (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 546, 589 N.E.2d 1284. This line of cases deals with the accrual of causes of action for medical malpractice under R.C. 2305.11, and the necessity of investigation and pursuit of remedies when a medical condition and its relationship to a previous medical procedure, treatment or diagnosis are discovered. Conversely, appellees contend that under Allenius, supra, the West 57th television program was the
cognizable event which commenced the running of the R.C. 2305.11(B)(1) period of limitations on the negligent credentialing causes of action. Thus, appellees assert that Mitchell's and Browning's claims against SEMC were filed within the R.C. 2305.11(B)(1) period of limitations. *555 Upon reflection, we cannot accept either of the parties' positions, which assume that R.C. 2305.11(B)(1) and our cases governing the accrual of causes of action for medical malpractice apply to claims of hospital liability for negligent credentialing. The theory of hospital liability at issue in these cases was discussed at some length in Albain v. Flower Hosp. (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 251, 257-260, 553 N.E.2d 1038, 1044-1047. In Albain, paragraph two of the syllabus, this court held that: In regard to staff privileges, a hospital has a direct duty to grant and to continue such privileges only to competent physicians. * * * In order to recover for a breach of this duty, a plaintiff injured by the negligence of a staff physician must demonstrate that but for the lack of care in the selection or the retention of the physician, the physician would not have been granted staff privileges, and the plaintiff would not have been injured. (Emphasis added.) The general duty imposed upon hospitals to grant and continue staff privileges only to competent physicians was identified in Albain as an independent duty of care owed directly to those admitted to the hospital. Id. at 257-260, 553 N.E.2d at 1044-1047. See, also, Taylor v. Flower Deaconess Home & Hosp. (1922), 104 Ohio St. 61, 135 N.E. 287. One of the areas in which the hospital owes the independent and direct duty to a patient is in establishing (and adhering to) reasonable peer review procedures: * * * [O]nce a competent and careful physician has been granted staff privileges, the hospital will not thereafter be liable unless it had reason to know that the act of malpractice would most likely take
Page 12
place. That is, where a previously competent physician with staff privileges develops a pattern of incompetence, which the hospital should become aware of through its peer review process, the hospital must stand ready to answer for its retention of such physician. (Footnote omitted.) Albain, 50 Ohio St.3d at 258, 553 N.E.2d at 1045. In addition, the majority in Albain quoted with approval the following statement: * * * [A hospital] is not required to pass upon the efficacy of treatment; it may not decide for a doctor whether an operation is necessary, or, if one be necessary, the nature thereof; but it owes to every patient whom it admits the duty of saving him from an illegal operation [or] false, fraudulent, or fictitious medical treatment. Albain, at 259, 553 N.E.2d at 1046, quoting **1003Hendrickson v. Hodkin (1937), 250 A.D. 619, 621, 294 N.Y.S. 982, 984-985 (Lazansky, P.J., dissenting), reversed (1937), 276 N.Y. 252, 11 N.E.2d 899. *556 [1][2] The complaints against SEMC in the cases before us allege that the hospital breached these independent duties owed directly to Browning and Mitchell as patients at SEMC. The negligent credentialing causes of action include allegations that SEMC failed to exercise prudence in granting or continuing staff privileges, failed to conduct reasonable peer review, failed to protect appellees Mitchell and Browning from known incompetent medical care, and otherwise failed to save appellees Mitchell and Browning from medical treatment (surgery) of an unnecessary and experimental nature. These claims are not claims for medical malpractice and, thus, the medical malpractice line of cases and the cognizable event test do not apply. A hospital does not practice medicine and is incapable of committing malpractice. See, generally, Lombard v. Good Samaritan Med. Ctr. (1982), 69 Ohio St.2d 471, 23 O.O.3d 410, 433 N.E.2d 162, and Richardson v. Doe (1964), 176 Ohio St. 370, 27 O.O.2d 345, 199 N.E.2d 878 (only physicians can commit medical malpractice). Further, appellees' claims against the hospital have nothing to
do with any issue concerning derivative liability of the hospital for the acts of its agent or employeephysicians. The question whether Burt or Blue is employed by SEMC is neither clear on the record before us nor particularly relevant to our discussion. Mitchell's and Browning's negligent credentialing claims against SEMC are independent claims asserted directly against SEMC for the hospital's own acts or omissions in granting and/or continuing the staff privileges of the doctor(s). Thus, we must determine what type of claim is being asserted by Browning and Mitchell against SEMC and, in addition, what statute of limitations applies to such claims. II Medical Claim-R.C. 2305.11(B)(1) and (D)(3) R.C. 2305.11(B)(1) provides, in part: * * * [A]n action upon a medical * * * claim shall be commenced within one year after the action accrued * * *. R.C. 2305.11(D)(3) provides, in part: Medical claim means any claim that is asserted in any civil action against a physician, podiatrist, or hospital, against any employee or agent of a physician, podiatrist, or hospital, or against a registered nurse or physical therapist, and that arises out of the medical diagnosis, care, or treatment of any person. * * * (Emphasis added.) [3][4] A careful reading of R.C. 2305.11(B)(1) and FN11 (D)(3) demonstrates that not all claims asserted against a hospital are medical claims subject to the *557 period of limitations set forth in R.C. 2305.11(B)(1). Rather, a claim against a hospital is a medical claim within the meaning of R.C. 2305.11(D)(3), and is subject to the one-year limitation period set forth in R.C. 2305.11(B)(1), only if the claim arises out of the medical diagnosis, care, or treatment of a person. The terms medical dia-
Page 13
gnosis and treatment are terms of art having a specific and particular meaning relating to the identification and alleviation of a physical or mental illness, disease, or defect. See, generally, Black's Law Dictionary (6 Ed.1990), at 453-454 and 1502. Conversely, the word care is a general word without a specific legal meaning until placed in a particular context. Under the ejusdem generis rule of statutory construction, care as used in R.C. 2305.11(D)(3) (where the word is preceded by terms such as physician, hospital, nurse, and medical diagnosis) means the prevention or alleviation of a physical or mental defect or illness. Thus, the term care in R.C. 2305.11(D)(3) should not be broadly interpreted when the context in which it is used is properly understood. FN11. The current version of R.C. 2305.11(B)(1) and (D)(3) has remained unchanged since the amendment to R.C. 2305.11 effective October 20, 1987. See 142 Ohio Laws, Part II, 3322-3325. [5][6] With the foregoing discussion in mind, we believe that claims asserted **1004 against a hospital for negligent credentialing do not arise out of the medical diagnosis, care, or treatment of a person. Negligent credentialing claims arise out of the hospital's failure to satisfy its independent duty to grant and continue staff privileges only to competent physicians. This independent duty does not directly involve diagnosis or the medical care and treatment of a patient. While the acts or omissions of a hospital in granting and/or continuing staff privileges to an incompetent physician may ultimately lead to an act of medical malpractice by the incompetent physician, the physician's ultimate act of medical malpractice is factually and legally severable and distinct from the hospital's acts or omissions in negligently credentialing him or her with staff membership or professional privileges. [7] Accordingly, we conclude that an action against a hospital for bodily injury arising out of the hospital's negligence in credentialing a physician is neither malpractice nor a medical claim to
which the limitations period found in R.C. 2305.11 FN12 applies. FN12. We reach this conclusion no matter which of the many previous versions of R.C. 2305.11 is considered. Prior to the October 1987 amendment to R.C. 2305.11 (142 Ohio Laws, Part II, 3322-3325), former versions of R.C. 2305.11(A) provided, in part, that [a]n action for * * * malpractice, including an action for malpractice against a * * * hospital, * * * shall be brought within one year after the cause thereof accrued * * *. See 141 Ohio Laws, Part II, 3228; 139 Ohio Laws, Part I, 2153; 136 Ohio Laws, Part II, 3841; and 136 Ohio Laws, Part II, 2810. Again, a hospital does not practice medicine and cannot commit malpractice. Lombard and Richardson, supra. *558 III Discovery Rule-R.C. 2305.10 [8] If a negligent credentialing cause of action is not a claim for malpractice or a medical claim, the obvious question becomes: What is it? It is, simply, a claim for bodily injury arising out of negligence which is not covered by the limitation periods found in R.C. 2305.11. Thus, we look to R.C. 2305.10, which provides in part: An action for bodily injury or injuring personal property shall be brought within two years after the cause thereof arose. A cause of action for negligent credentialing of a physician by a hospital which results in bodily injury is an action falling under the umbrella of R.C. 2305.10. [9][10] Pursuant to R.C. 2305.10, the two-year period of limitations begins to run when a cause of ac-
Page 14
tion for bodily injury arose, while the R.C. 2305.11(B)(1) statute of limitations for medical claims begins to run when a cause of action accrued. However, we believe that the terms arose and accrued are synonymous and that the rule of discovery long recognized in Ohio as applicable to the accrual of causes of action should be applied to the R.C. 2305.10 statute of limitations for claims of hospital negligence in credentialing a physician. The history of the so-called discovery rule in Ohio is long and storied. The rule of discovery was originally recognized by this court in the medical malpractice context, but the rule has been generally accepted and applied in numerous areas of the law. See Shover v. Cordis Corp. (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 213, 223-227, 574 N.E.2d 457, 464-467 (Douglas, J., dissenting). Of particular significance, the discovery rule has been judicially applied to the general statute of limitations for bodily injury actions under former R.C. 2305.10. In O'Stricker v. Jim Walter Corp. (1983), 4 Ohio St.3d 84, 4 OBR 335, 447 N.E.2d 727, paragraphs one and two of the syllabus, this court held that: 1. Absent legislative definition, it is left to the judiciary to determine when a cause arose for purposes of statutes of limitations. 2. When an injury does not manifest itself immediately, the cause of action does not arise until the plaintiff knows or, by the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known, that he had been injured by the conduct of *559 defendant, for purposes of the statute of limitations contained in R.C. 2305.10. **1005 O'Stricker was decided under a version of R.C. 2305.10 in effect prior to the 1980 amendment to the statute. The 1980 amendment to R.C. 2305.10 specifically adopted a discovery rule for bodily injury actions caused by exposure to asbestos and chromium. 138 Ohio Laws, Part II, 3412. In Burgess v. Eli Lilly & Co. (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 59, 609 N.E.2d 140, where a discovery rule provided
by the General Assembly for DES-related injuries was found to be insufficient, we again had occasion to announce that a discovery rule applies to the R.C. 2305.10 general statute of limitations for bodily injury actions. Here, we extend the discovery rule to bodily injury actions resulting from a hospital's negligence in credentialing a physician. IV Cognizable Event Although not directly applicable to the claims of hospital negligence in the cases before us, the rule of discovery for the accrual of causes of action for medical malpractice under R.C. 2305.11 was explained in Allenius, supra, as requiring the occurrence of a cognizable event which does or should lead the patient to believe that the condition of which the patient complains is related to a medical procedure, treatment or diagnosis previously rendered to the patient and where the cognizable event does or should place the patient on notice of the need to pursue his possible remedies. Id. at syllabus. Today, we borrow from Allenius in constructing a rule of discovery applicable to R.C. 2305.10 for bodily injury actions arising from negligent credentialing by a hospital. We emphasize, however, that Allenius and our cases governing the accrual of causes of action for medical malpractice are not applicable to causes of action for hospital negligence in credentialing a physician. By its very nature, the discovery rule (concept) must be specially tailored to the particular context in which it is to be applied. Our decisions concerning the accrual of causes of action for medical malpractice are not applicable to determine the accrual date of claims not related to the medical malpractice of a physician. The court of appeals found that the critical inquiry for determining the accrual date of the negligent credentialing causes of action requires pinpointing
Page 15
when the victims should have discovered that SEMC had failed to provide adequate supervision or review of Dr. Burt (and Dr. Blue in the Browning case). The court of appeals found no evidence that Mitchell or Browning discovered or should have discovered that SEMC had failed to perform its legal duties until the women viewed the television program in October 1988 *560 and realized that other former patients of Dr. Burt suffered from maladies similar to their own. Thus, the court of appeals held that summary judgment on the basis of the R.C. 2305.11(B)(1) statute of limitations was not proper in either case, since the complaints were filed within one year of the discovery of pertinent facts which placed appellees on notice to pursue a remedy against the hospital. [11] We agree with the court of appeals that in both cases the October 1988 television program was the event which triggered the running of the statute of limitations on Browning's and Mitchell's claims against SEMC-although it is the R.C. 2305.10 period of limitations which should have been applied. The court of appeals was absolutely correct in recognizing that the facts or events which might trigger the running of the statute of limitations for medical malpractice claims against a doctor do not necessarily commence the running of a statute of limitations on claims against a hospital for hospital negligence unrelated to the medical diagnosis, care, or treatment of a person. We, mildly and respectfully, disagree with the court of appeals to the extent that it found the cognizable event test of Allenius to be directly applicable in determining the accrual date of appellees' negligent credentialing claims. Mere mention of Allenius and the cognizable event test conjures up images of medical malpractice (to anyone who is familiar with our cases in this area), which may be one reason for the confusion **1006 in the court of appeals, resulting in application of the wrong statute of limitations to appellees' causes of action for hospital negligence. V
Alerting Event [12][13] In tailoring a rule of discovery applicable to R.C. 2305.10 for bodily injury actions arising from negligent credentialing by a hospital, we hold that a cause of action for negligent credentialing arises when the plaintiff knows or should know that he or she was injured as a result of the hospital's negligent credentialing procedures or practices. In our judgment, the only evidence of any perspicuous event which should have alerted appellees Browning and Mitchell to pursue their negligence claims against SEMC occurred in October 1988. Upon viewing a television program, Browning and Mitchell became aware that many of Burt's expatients suffered from abnormalities similar to their own as a consequence of Burt's surgical practices at SEMC. The record is devoid of evidence that appellees knew or should have known prior to October 1988 that SEMC may have done something wrong in granting or continuing privileges to Dr. Burt or Blue. The special Burt consent form in Browning's and Mitchell's hospital records would not have apprised Mitchell *561 and Browning that their doctor(s) may have committed a number of harmful, improper or unwarranted surgeries upon a number of unsuspecting patients such that SEMC's credentialing practices could reasonably be brought into question. Accordingly, the R.C. 2305.10 statute of limitations was triggered in October 1988, and the complaints against SEMC were filed well within the applicable two-year period of FN13 limitations. FN13. It is interesting to note that even if Browning's negligent credentialing claims against SEMC accrued in August 1987 as the trial court suggested, the action would still have been timely filed against SEMC under the applicable two-year period of limitations. [14][15] Obviously, we do not hold that a television program like the one at issue in these cases is necessary to trigger the running of the R.C. 2305.10
Page 16
statute of limitations in every case of negligent credentialing. It is sufficient if a plaintiff discovers or, through the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have discovered some definitive information that would reasonably warrant investigation of the hospital's credentialing practices. Such an occurrence might be termed an alerting event, if for no other reason than to contrast the occurrence triggering the commencement of the statute of limitations for negligence in R.C. 2305.10 from the cognizable event of R.C. 2305.11 limitation periods. However, discovery of a physician's medical malpractice does not, in itself, constitute an alerting event nor does such discovery implicate the hospital's credentialing practices or require investigation of the hospital in this regard. To hold otherwise would encourage baseless claims of negligent credentialing and a hospital would be named in nearly every lawsuit involving the malpractice of a physician. VI R.C. 2305.25 [16] SEMC and amicus curiae, Ohio Hospital Association, suggest that hospitals are immune from liability for the acts, omissions and decisions of their peer review committees by virtue of R.C. 2305.25 and that, therefore, a hospital cannot be liable for negligent peer review. We reject this argument. R.C. 2305.25 provides, in part: No hospital, no state or local society, and no individual who is a member or employee of any of the following committees shall be liable in damages to any person for any acts, omissions, decisions, or other conduct within the scope of the functions of the committee: ***
*562 (E) A peer review committee, professional standards review committee, or arbitration committee of a state or local society composed of doctors of medicine, doctors of osteopathic medicine and surgery, doctors of dentistry, doctors of optometry, doctors **1007 of podiatric medicine, psychologists, or registered pharmacists[.] (Emphasis added.) Following a listing of the specific review boards and committees, R.C. 2305.25 provides that: Nothing in this section shall relieve any individual or hospital from liability arising from treatment of a patient. This section shall also apply to any member or employee of a nonprofit corporation engaged in performing the functions of a peer review committee of nursing home providers or administrators or of a peer review or professional standards review committee. No person who provides information under this section and provides such information without malice and in the reasonable belief that such information is warranted by the facts known to him shall be subject to suit for civil damages as a result thereof. The purposes of R.C. 2305.25 are clear. The statute extends limited protection to those who provide information to certain review boards and committees to encourage the free flow of information without threat of reprisal in the form of civil liability. See, generally, Jacobs v. Frank (1991), 60 Ohio St.3d 111, 113, 573 N.E.2d 609, 612. The statute also seeks to protect those serving on committees and committee employees for the obvious reason that it could be difficult to staff a committee absent such protections. However, the cases at bar do not involve a situation where SEMC has been either the provider of information to a committee (see, e.g.,R.C. 1742.141), or the participant on a committee. It is clear to us that R.C. 2305.25 does not provide blanket immunity to a hospital for negligence in granting and/or continuing staff privileges of an incompetent physician.
Page 17
[17] SEMC protests that R.C. 2305.25 and 2305.251 prevent a hospital from defending itself against claims for negligent peer review. According to SEMC, these statutes require that no evidence as to any matter brought to the attention of peer review committees, or actions taken by those committees, can be introduced into evidence in the hospital's defense. We reject SEMC's contentions for a number of reasons, but quoting from the following portion of R.C. 2305.251 should dispel any notion that SEMC's arguments are meritorious: * * * Information, documents, or records otherwise available from original sources are not to be construed as being unavailable for discovery or for use in any civil action merely because they were presented during proceedings of a committee nor should any person testifying before a committee or who is *563 a member of the committee be prevented from testifying as to matters within his knowledge, but the witness cannot be asked about his testimony before the committee or opinion formed by him as a result of the committee hearing. VII Summary of Holdings re Claims Against SEMC In summarizing our discussion concerning the claims against SEMC, we hold that: 1. Hospital negligence arising out of the care of a patient is a medical claim within the meaning of R.C. 2305.11(D)(3) and is subject to the period of limitations set forth in R.C. 2305.11(B)(1). Care as used in R.C. 2305.11(D)(3) is the prevention or alleviation of a physical or mental defect or illness. 2. Negligent credentialing of a physician by a hospital is not medical diagnosis, care, or treatment within the meaning of R.C. 2305.11. 3. An action against a hospital for bodily injury arising out of the negligent credentialing of a physi-
cian is subject to the two-year limitations period set forth in R.C. 2305.10. 4. The period of limitations set forth in R.C. 2305.10 commences to run when the victim knows or should have discovered that he or she was injured as a result of the hospital's negligent credentialing procedures or practices. 5. R.C. 2305.25 does not provide a hospital with immunity from liability for the hospital's negligence in granting and/or **1008 continuing the staff privileges of an incompetent physician. For the reasons stated herein, which differ, in part, from the reasoning of the court of appeals, we affirm the court of appeals' judgment in case No. 91-2121 (Mitchell) and that portion of the court of appeals' judgment in case No. 91-2079 (Browning) which reversed the judgment of the trial court with respect to the dismissal of the action against FN14 SEMC. FN14. Lawrence Browning's consortium action against SEMC, premised upon SEMC's alleged negligence in credentialing Drs. Burt and Blue, was timely filed and we reject SEMC's arguments to the contrary. VIII Consortium Claim of Lawrence Browning Against Blue The only remaining question before us concerns the appeal of Dr. Blue in case No. 91-2079 (Browning) regarding the reinstatement of Lawrence *564 Browning's consortium claim against Blue. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. Blue contends that Lawrence Browning did not appeal to the court of appeals and, thus, the appellate court had no jurisdiction to reverse the judgment of
Page 18
the trial court on any issue relating to Lawrence's claim against Blue. However, the record does not support this contention and, therefore, we reject Blue's argument. Blue also suggests that the court of appeals abused its discretion in finding that the R.C. 2305.09 statute of limitations applied to Lawrence's consortium claim against Blue, since no party briefed or argued the issue or raised the question in an assignment of error to the court of appeals. We find no abuse of discretion. The law is clear that spousal consortium claims arising from medical malpractice are governed by the R.C. 2305.09(D) four-year period of limitations, when the principal claim for malpractice accrued, as it did here, prior to the effective date of the October 1987 amendment to R.C. 2305.11. Hershberger, supra, 34 Ohio St.3d at 6, FN15 516 N.E.2d at 208. Furthermore, the issue decided by the court of appeals did not involve the constitutionality of a statute and, thus, the case of State v. 1981 Dodge Ram Van (1988), 36 Ohio St.3d 168, 522 N.E.2d 524, is distinguishable. A number of other cases cited by Blue merely recite the general rule of law that issues may be treated as waived if not raised at the first opportunity or assigned as error in the court of appeals. However, there is no general prohibition in App.R. 12(A) requiring that issues be treated as waived. FN15. In this regard, we note that the October 1987 amendment to R.C. 2305.11 specifically made certain derivative claims subject to the same period of limitations as the principal claim. See R.C. 2305.11(D)(3); 142 Ohio Laws, Part II, at 3324. Finally, Blue suggests that even under the R.C. 2305.09 statute of limitations, Lawrence Browning's action against Blue for loss of consortium was untimely filed. Specifically, Blue urges that Mrs. Browning's malpractice claim against Blue accrued within the meaning of R.C. 2305.11 as early as 1983 and, thus, Lawrence Browning had four years from that time to commence suit against
Blue, but failed to do so. However, Mrs. Browning's malpractice claim against Blue was found by the trial court and court of appeals to have accrued in August 1987 at the latest. Since the R.C. 2305.09(D) four-year period of limitations on Lawrence's claim against Blue commenced to run on the same date that the R.C. 2305.11 one-year period of limitations began to run on Browning's malpractice claim against Blue, Hershberger, supra, paragraph two of the syllabus, Lawrence's claim was timely filed. This is especially true given the fact that Browning continued *565 her treatment with Blue until August 1987. See Frysinger v. Leech (1987), 32 Ohio St.3d 38, 512 N.E.2d 337, paragraph one of the syllabus. IX Conclusion In reaching our conclusions, we do not pass judgment (since issues of alleged liability**1009 are yet to be determined) on Dr. Blue or SEMC, although it is tempting to do so given what the record shows has happened to these two women. Perhaps now they, and others, will have their day in court, where the conspiracy of silence in the local medical community which permitted the atrocities to be committed, and the atrocities themselves, can be more fully explored. Further, nothing in our opinion should be read to stand in the way of the proper performance of progressive medicine. For all the reasons set forth herein, we affirm the difficult and courageous judgments of the court of appeals. Judgments affirmed. A. WILLIAM SWEENEY, FRANCIS E. SWEENEY, Sr., and PFEIFER, JJ., concur. MOYER, C.J., and WRIGHT and COOK, JJ., concur in part and dissent in part. DEBORAH L. COOK, J., of the Ninth Appellate
Page 19
District, sitting for RESNICK, J.MOYER, Chief Justice, concurring and dissenting. MOYER, C.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part. I concur with the majority's disposition of Lawrence Browning's consortium claim against Dr. Blue. However, I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion because (1) a negligent credentialing cause of action is a medical claim and is subject to the one-year limitations period set forth in former R.C. 2305.11, and (2) plaintiffs' claims against St. Elizabeth Medical Center (SEMC) had already accrued and were time-barred by the time plaintiffs viewed the West 57th television program. I Because the majority's newly styled negligent credentialing cause of action is created from the language of a previous decision of this court, it is important to first consult that language before analyzing the cases sub judice. In Albain v. Flower Hosp. (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 251, 553 N.E.2d 1038, we recognized, as an exception to the independent contractor rule, the right of a plaintiff to hold an employer directly liable for injuries proximately caused by the employer's own negligence in selecting or retaining an independent contractor. We applied this rule to the hospital setting and held that a *566 hospital can be held liable for the medical malpractice of a staff physician where the injured party can prove that the hospital was negligent in granting or in continuing the staff privileges of the independent physician. Paragraph two of the syllabus of that decision reads: In regard to staff privileges, a hospital has a direct duty to grant and to continue such privileges only to competent physicians. A hospital is not an insurer of the skills of private physicians to whom staff privileges have been granted. In order to recover for a breach of this duty, a plaintiff injured by the negligence of a staff physician must demonstrate that but for the lack of care in the selection or the retention of the physician, the physician would
not have been granted staff privileges, and the plaintiff would not have been injured. (Emphasis added.) The above-emphasized language underscores a crucial point underemphasized by the majority's opinion: under Albain, claims against a hospital for negligent retention or selection of a staff physician are dependent on an underlying medical malpractice claim against the staff physician. In order to prevail in a cause of action for negligent credentialing against a hospital pursuant to Albain, the plaintiff must establish not only negligent selection and/or retention of a physician, but also that but for the hospital's negligence, the plaintiff would not have been injured. That is, Albain requires that the underlying malpractice of the physician be proven before the plaintiff can recover damages against the hospital for its own negligence. Without an underlying harm to the hospital's patient through medical malpractice, an action against the hospital for negligent credentialing will never arise. Although medical malpractice claims against the doctor and negligent credentialing claims against the hospital are separate causes of action, with separate and distinct duties owed to a **1010 singular class of individuals, both causes of action fail without proof that the physician's failure to abide by ordinary standards of care proximately caused the patient's harm. Having failed to fully appreciate the significance of the interdependence between the negligent credentialing claims and the underlying malpractice claims, the majority has also erroneously held that a negligent credentialing cause of action is subject to the two-year limitations period set forth in R.C. 2305.10, rather than the one-year period found in FN16 former R.C. 2305.11. FN16. Current R.C. 2305.11(B)(1), unlike the former version of the statute, specifically states that an action on a medical * * * claim (like those actions based upon a dental, optometric, or chiropractic claim) is required to be commenced within one year after the action accrued. Under R.C.
Page 20
2305.11(D)(3), medical claim includes claims which seek to hold a hospital responsible for its own torts as well as those alleging the hospital is vicariously liable for the wrongful acts of its employees and agents. In both cases, the claim must be one that arises out of the medical diagnosis, care, or treatment of any person before the one-year limitations period is applicable. (Emphasis added.) R.C. 2305.11(D)(3) reads: Medical claim means any claim that is asserted in any civil action against a physician, podiatrist, or hospital, against any employee or agent of a physician, podiatrist, or hospital, or against a registered nurse or physical therapist, and that arises out of the medical diagnosis, care, or treatment of any person. Medical claim includes derivative claims for relief that arise from the medical diagnosis, care, or treatment of a person. (Emphasis added.) *567 Under the version of R.C. 2305.11 in effect at the time the plaintiffs' causes of action arose, medical claim was defined in R.C. 2305.11(D)(3) as any claim asserted in any civil action against a physician, podiatrist, or hospital arising out of the diagnosis, care, or treatment of any person. (Emphasis added.) 139 Ohio Laws, Part I, 2154. Although former R.C. 2305.11 did not explicitly state that a medical claim is subject to the one-year limitations period contained in former R.C. 2305.11(A), I believe that the one-year statute of limitations is nonetheless applicable. As Justice Holmes correctly explained in his dissent in Lombard v. Good Samaritan Med. Ctr. (1982), 69 Ohio St.2d 471, 475-476, 23 O.O.3d 410, 413, 433 N.E.2d 162, 165, the General Assembly intended the words malpractice and medical claim to be used interchangeably: * * * The second paragraph of R.C. 2305.11(A) allows one to serve written notice, prior to expira-
tion of the time in R.C. 2305.11(A), upon a person and extend the time in which a suit may be brought against that person by up to 180 days from the time notice is given. This paragraph does not refer at all to malpractice. Rather, it uses the phrase medical claim. This is evidence that the General Assembly considered the words malpractice and medical claim to be synonymous, for if the legislative intent was to give these words different meanings, it would make little sense to include actions such as the present one in a subsection that did not apply to them. I would, therefore, hold that a negligent credentialing cause of action against a hospital, like a medical malpractice lawsuit brought against a physician, is subject to the one-year statute of limitations of R.C. 2305.11. Claims asserted against a hospital for negligent credentialing do arise out of a patient's medical diagnosis, care, or treatment. In every instance, the plaintiff-patient is alleging that the staff physician has rendered him or her substandard diagnosis, care, or treatment which proximately resulted in plaintiff's alleged injuries. The negligent credentialing claim against the hospital would not have arisen but for the underlying medical malpractice. Accordingly, the instant actions against the hospital are medical claim[s] within the meaning of former R.C. 2305.11(D)(3) and the plaintiffs had one year from the time of accrual in which to file their lawsuits. *568 II What remains to be determined is the proper accrual date of the plaintiffs' negligent credentialing causes of action against SEMC. Our prior decisions establish that a cause of action for medical malpractice accrues when the patient discovers or, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have **1011 discovered the resulting injury, or when the physician-patient relationship for that condition terminates, whichever occurs later. Frysinger v. Leech (1987), 32 Ohio St.3d 38, 512 N.E.2d 337, syllabus. The term cognizable event was used in Allenius
Page 21
v. Thomas (1989), 42 Ohio St.3d 131, 538 N.E.2d 93, to identify the point in time when the patient in fact discovers or reasonably should have discovered the resulting injury. Allenius cited the following language of Oliver v. Kaiser Community Health Found.(1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 111, 5 OBR 247, 449 N.E.2d 438, paragraph one of the syllabus: Under R.C. 2305.11(A), a cause of action for medical malpractice accrues and the statute of limitations commences to run when the patient discovers, or, in the exercise of reasonable care and diligence should have discovered, the resulting injury. Allenius, supra, 42 Ohio St.3d at 133, 538 N.E.2d at 95. Therefore, a cognizable event is an occurrence which does or should lead the patient to believe that the condition of which the patient complains is related to a medical procedure, treatment or diagnosis previously rendered to the patient and where the cognizable event does or should place the patient on notice of the need to pursue his possible remedies. Allenius, supra, at syllabus. Concurring in that opinion in order to emphasize that it is discovery of the physical injury-not discovery of the legal claim-which triggers the statute of limitations, I stated: [I]n determining when the statute of limitations is triggered, [t]he test is whether the plaintiff has information of circumstances sufficient to put a reasonable person on inquiry, or has the opportunity to obtain knowledge from sources open to his or her investigation. * * * As indicated by the majority, it is a cognizable event such as the occurrence of pain or injury * * * rather than knowledge of its legal significance that starts the running of the statute of limitations. Allenius, supra, at 135, 538 N.E.2d at 97. That proposition was recognized in a later decision by this court in Flowers v. Walker (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 546, 549, 589 N.E.2d 1284, 1287-1288: Moreover, constructive knowledge of facts, rather than actual knowledge of their legal significance, is
enough to start the statute of limitations running under the discovery rule. * * * A plaintiff need not have discovered all the relevant facts necessary to file a claim in order to trigger the statute of limitations. * * * Rather, the cognizable event itself puts the plaintiff on *569 notice to investigate the facts and circumstances relevant to her claim in order to pursue her remedies. * * * (Emphasis sic.) The facts or circumstances which give rise to a cognizable event for purposes of discovery of a medical malpractice claim do not automatically give rise to a claim against a hospital for negligent credentialing. A physician's negligence does not automatically mean that the hospital is liable, and does not raise a presumption that the hospital was negligent in granting the physician staff privileges. Albain, supra, 50 Ohio St.3d at 258-259, 553 N.E.2d at 1046. As noted by the majority, the statute of limitations for negligent credentialing begins to run when the plaintiff discovers or, through the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have discovered some definitive information that would reasonably warrant investigation of the hospital's credentialing practices. Here, the majority has followed the lead of the court of appeals in determining that there was no evidence before the trial court that the plaintiffs knew or should have known that the hospital had failed to perform its legal duty toward them until plaintiffs viewed the West 57th television show. I strongly disagree because I believe the plaintiffs had earlier notice of SEMC's negligence in granting staff privileges to the defendant-physicians. The record indicates that both Browning and Mitchell signed the following acknowledgement on SEMC letterhead prior to having Dr. Burt perform vaginal reconstruction surgery: **1012 Dear Patient: The Executive Committee of the Medical Staff of St. Elizabeth Medical Center wishes to inform you that the female coital area reconstruction surgery you are about to undergo is:
Page 22
1. Not documented by ordinary standards of scientific reporting and publication. 2. Not a generally accepted procedure. 3. As yet not duplicated by other investigators. 4. Detailed only in non-scientific literature. You should be informed that the Executive Committee of the Medical Staff considers the aforementioned procedure an unproven, non-standard practice of gynecology. The majority completely overlooks the impact of the signed consent form in determining when the plaintiffs' negligent credentialing causes of action against SEMC accrued. Instead, the majority holds that plaintiffs' causes of action accrued no earlier than the date Browning and Mitchell viewed the West 57th television program. In this regard, the majority asserts that *570 notice of a hospital's negligent credentialing practices only occurs where the patient has been apprised that his or her doctor may have committed a number of harmful, improper or unwarranted surgeries upon a number of unsuspecting patients such that [a hospital's] credentialing practices could reasonably be brought into question. I disagree and would hold, contrary to the majority opinion, that the plaintiffs' causes of action against SEMC could accrue even without notice that other former patients were suffering from similar conditions. One is not left to imagine the purpose SEMC had in supplying this form letter to patients about to undergo Dr. Burt's unusual surgery. SEMC was clearly attempting to insulate itself from liability. In doing so, the hospital was telling its patients that Dr. Burt's specific brand of reconstruction surgery was unlike any other known form of reconstruction surgery. The experimental nature of this surgery therefore carried with it additional risks not associated with standard and generally accepted surgical procedures. Because it is not before this court, we leave unresolved the issue whether the hospital can
effectively assert this letter as a defense to the Browning and Mitchell lawsuits. However, the letter's relevance in placing these former patients on notice that SEMC itself may have breached a duty owed to them by allowing such surgeries to be performed on its premises should not likewise go unresolved. If the majority properly applied Allenius and Flowers to these facts, the conclusion would be that the form letter was effective to place both Browning and Mitchell on notice that SEMC may have failed to properly perform its credentialing duties by permitting a physician's questionable surgical procedures. The next question to be answered is when the statute of limitations began to run on the patients' negligent credentialing causes of action against SEMC. Obviously, the statute did not begin to run when Browning and Mitchell were supplied with the form letter because the surgeries had yet to be performed and they, therefore, could claim no resulting injury. Since they had no reason to believe they were harmed, it is equally unfair to hold that the statute of limitations was triggered when the operations were first performed. In medical malpractice cases, the running of the statute of limitations is delayed from the traditional date of injury to the date a cognizable event is discovered, in order to eliminate unfairness to medical malpractice plaintiffs. See Flowers, supra, 63 Ohio St.3d at 550, 589 N.E.2d at 1288. Accordingly, it was not until Browning and Mitchell became aware that the injuries they complained of were related to the doctors' surgeries that they should have appreciated the significance of the hospital's form letter. Allenius clearly envisions and requires that the patient investigate and pursue all possible *571 remedies once he or she has been put on notice by the cognizable event. See Allenius, 42 Ohio St.3d 131, 538 N.E.2d 93, syllabus. Among the possible remedies of a plaintiff harmed by the malpractice of a **1013 physician are claims against a hospital for negligent credentialing procedures when that patient has informa-
Page 23
tion of circumstances sufficient to put a reasonable person on inquiry that the hospital may have breached a duty owed to him or her. At the time their causes of action against the doctors accrued, the form letter provided notice to plaintiffs of a possible claim against SEMC or at least should have alerted them to the need to investigate such claim. In case No. 91-2079, Browning informed Dr. Blue at the latest in August 1987 that he had committed malpractice on her. By that time, Browning had undergone approximately sixteen surgeries and her physical and emotional health was continuing to decline. The trial court, therefore, correctly found that August 1987, at the very latest, was the time when Browning was put on notice by a cognizable event to pursue her medical malpractice claim and the one-year statute of limitations of R.C. 2305.11 began to run. To hold otherwise is to cast aside the cognizable event test this court announced just four years ago in an effort to give trial courts some useful standard in medical malpractice cases. Because Browning should also have been aware of SEMC's negligence in permitting her doctor's experimental surgery, her cause of action against the hospital for negligent credentialing and retention also accrued on this date. Both causes of action were barred because Browning filed her complaint on April 17, 1989, outside the one-year period of limitations. In case No. 91-2121, Mitchell underwent Dr. Burt's reconstruction surgery in January 1985. The medical problems to be alleviated by this surgery (which included urinary incontinence, bladder and vaginal infections and painful sexual intercourse) actually worsened within a few months after the January 1985 surgical procedure. The record indicates that by mid-1985, intense pain and massive vaginal bleeding made it impossible for Mitchell to engage in sexual intercourse with her husband. Mitchell was also aware of the unusual appearance of her vagina at this time. She discovered that her vagina was covered over and sewn up. Certainly, these
occurrences gave rise to a cognizable event for purposes of Mitchell's discovery of her medical malpractice claim. Like Browning, the SEMC form letter could reasonably be expected to place Mitchell on notice of the need to pursue her possible remedy against the hospital. Since Mitchell's complaint against the hospital was filed more than three years after she was placed on notice, the trial court correctly found it was timebarred. *572 For the foregoing reasons, I would reverse the judgment of the court of appeals as it relates to the claims of plaintiffs against SEMC and reinstate the grants of summary judgment by the trial court. COOK, J., concurs in the foregoing opinion.WRIGHT, Justice, concurring in part and dissenting in part. WRIGHT, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part. Along with the Chief Justice, I agree with the majority's disposition of Lawrence Browning's consortium claim, but disagree with the majority's disposition of the plaintiffs' negligent credentialing claims against St. Elizabeth Medical Center. Unlike the Chief Justice though, because I believe a negligent credentialing claim is necessarily grounded in negligence, I agree with the majority's holding in paragraph three of the syllabus that [a]n action against a hospital for bodily injury arising out of the negligent credentialing of a physician is subject to the two-year limitations period set forth in R.C. 2305.10. However, I find it completely unnecessary to create a new event, the alerting event, as the accrual date for the running of the statute of limitations. The cognizable event which we recognized in Allenius v. Thomas (1989), 42 Ohio St.3d 131, 538 N.E.2d 93, the event by which the patient discovers, or, in the exercise of reasonable care and diligence should have discovered, the resulting injury, is the event which place[s] the patient on notice of the need to pursue his possible remedies. Id. at 133, 538 N.E.2d at 95, and at syllabus (quoting, in part, **1014Oliver v. Kaiser Community Health
Page 24
Found.[1983], 5 Ohio St.3d 111, 5 OBR 247, 449 N.E.2d 438, paragraph one of the syllabus). One of the possible remedies of which the plaintiff is on notice is a negligent credentialing claim. I certainly agree with the majority that not every case of malpractice will give rise to a negligent credentialing claim. However, as the Chief Justice points out, every negligent credentialing claim will by necessity arise out of a malpractice claim because the plaintiff must have been injured by the hospital's actions in negligently credentialing the physician in question. Therefore, it seems to me that the cognizable event which is the accrual date for a malpractice action is the same point in time at which, as the majority writes, the plaintiff discovers or, through the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have discovered some definitive information that would reasonably warrant investigation of the hospital's credentialing practices. (Emphasis added.) I disagree with the majority that use of this cognizable event to trigger the statute of limitations for a negligent credentialing claim will encourage baseless claims of negligent credentialing and a hospital would be named in nearly every lawsuit involving the malpractice of a physician. The majority *573 overlooks the fact that the malpractice action has a one-year limitations period while the negligent credentialing claim will have a two-year limitations period. This allows plaintiffs additional time to investigate whether the injury caused by the malpractice was a result of the hospital's negligent credentialing of the physician. My view of the record is that the cognizable event as to both appellees with respect to the hospital took place at a far earlier time than the television show described by the majority. Accordingly, I would remand the matter to the trial court to determine the precise time frames involved. Ohio,1993. Browning v. Burt 66 Ohio St.3d 544, 613 N.E.2d 993, 62 USLW
2116, 1993 -Ohio- 178 END OF DOCUMENT
Westlaw Delivery Summary Report for CROTTY,PATRICK Date/Time of Request: Client Identifier: Database: Citation Text: Service: Lines: Documents: Images: Monday, July 6, 2009 11:17 Central PATRICK CROTTY KEYCITE-HIST 613 N.E.2d 993 KeyCite 150 1 0
AUTHORIZED FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Date of Printing: Jul 06, 2009 KEYCITE Browning v. Burt, 66 Ohio St.3d 544, 613 N.E.2d 993, 62 USLW 2116, 1993-Ohio-178 (Ohio,Jun 30, 1993) (NO. 91-2079, 91-2121, 7672) History Direct History 1 Browning v. Burt, 1991 WL 227775 (Ohio App. 2 Dist. Aug 20, 1991) (NO. 12176) Motion to Certify Allowed by 2 Browning v. Burt, 62 Ohio St.3d 1496, 583 N.E.2d 967 (Ohio Jan 15, 1992) (Table, NO. 91-2079) AND Judgment Affirmed by => 3 Browning v. Burt, 66 Ohio St.3d 544, 613 N.E.2d 993, 62 USLW 2116, 1993-Ohio-178 (Ohio Jun 30, 1993) (NO. 7672, 91-2079, 91-2121) Rehearing Denied by 4 Browning v. Burt, 67 Ohio St.3d 1439, 617 N.E.2d 688 (Ohio Aug 25, 1993) (Table, NO. 91-2079) AND Rehearing Denied by 5 Mitchell v. Burt, 67 Ohio St.3d 1439, 617 N.E.2d 688 (Ohio Aug 25, 1993) (Table, NO. 91-2121) AND Certiorari Denied by 6 St. Elizabeth Medical Center v. Browning, 510 U.S. 1111, 114 S.Ct. 1054, 127 L.Ed.2d 375, 62 USLW 3542, 62 USLW 3551 (U.S.Ohio Feb 22, 1994) (NO. 93-832) 7 Mitchell v. Burt, 1991 WL 163437 (Ohio App. 2 Dist. Aug 26, 1991) (NO. 12244) Motion to Certify Allowed by 8 Mitchell v. Burt, 62 Ohio St.3d 1502, 583 N.E.2d 973 (Ohio Jan 22, 1992) (Table, NO. 91-2121) AND Judgment Affirmed by => 9 Browning v. Burt, 66 Ohio St.3d 544, 613 N.E.2d 993, 62 USLW 2116, 1993-Ohio-178 (Ohio Jun 30, 1993) (NO. 7672, 91-2079, 91-2121) Rehearing Denied by 10 Browning v. Burt, 67 Ohio St.3d 1439, 617 N.E.2d 688 (Ohio Aug 25, 1993) (Table, NO. 91-2079) AND Rehearing Denied by 11 Mitchell v. Burt, 67 Ohio St.3d 1439, 617 N.E.2d 688 (Ohio Aug 25, 1993) (Table, NO. 91-2121) AND Certiorari Denied by 12 St. Elizabeth Medical Center v. Browning, 510 U.S. 1111, 114 S.Ct. 1054, 127 L.Ed.2d 375, 62
2009 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.
USLW 3542, 62 USLW 3551 (U.S.Ohio Feb 22, 1994) (NO. 93-832) Negative Citing References (U.S.A.) Declined to Extend by 13 United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. St. Elizabeth Med. Ctr., 129 Ohio App.3d 45, 716 N.E.2d 1201 (Ohio App. 2 Dist. Jul 10, 1998) (NO. 16518) HN: 1,15 (N.E.2d) Distinguished by 14 Cramer v. Archdiocese of Cincinnati, 158 Ohio App.3d 110, 814 N.E.2d 97, 2004-Ohio-3891 (Ohio App. 1 Dist. Jul 23, 2004) (NO. C-030827, C-040061) 15 Doe v. Archdiocese of Cincinnati, 109 Ohio St.3d 491, 849 N.E.2d 268, 2006-Ohio-2625 (Ohio May 31, 2006) (NO. 2005-0702, 2005-0734, 2897) HN: 12,13,14 (N.E.2d) 16 Jett v. Interim Healthcare, 2008 WL 5104678, 2008-Ohio-6332 (Ohio App. 2 Dist. Dec 05, 2008) (NO. 22727) HN: 4,5 (N.E.2d) Court Documents Appellate Court Documents (U.S.A.) Ohio Appellate Briefs 17 In the Case of Jimmie Dean BROWNING, Et Al., Plaintiffs - Appellees, v. James BURT, M.D., Et Al., Defendants - Appellants., 1991 WL 11236700 (Appellate Brief) (Ohio Oct. 17, 1991) Brief Amicus Curiae of Ohio Hospital Association in Support of Jurisdiction (NO. 91-2079) 18 Coney MITCHELL, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James C. BURT, M.D., Defendant Max Blue, M.D., St. Elizabeth Medical Center, Defendant-Appellants., 1991 WL 11236706 (Appellate Brief) (Ohio Dec. 31, 1991) Plaintiff-Appellee Connie Mitchell's Opposition to Defendant-Appellant St. Elizabeth Medical Center's Motion to Strike Appendix (NO. 91-2121) 19 In the Case of Jimmie Dean BROWNING, Et Al., Plaintiffs - Appellees, v. James BURT, M.D., Et Al., Defendants - Appellants., 1992 WL 12137617 (Appellate Brief) (Ohio Feb. 24, 1992) Brief Amicus Curiae of Ohio Hospital Association (NO. 91-2079) 20 In the Case of Coney MITCHELL, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. James BURT, M.D., Et Al., Defendants - Appellants., 1992 WL 12137630 (Appellate Brief) (Ohio Feb. 28, 1992) Brief Amicus Curiae of Ohio Hospital Association (NO. 91-2121) 21 Jimmie Dean BROWING, et al., Appellees, v. James C. BURT, M.D., Defendant, Max Blue, M.D., and St. Elizabeth Medical Center, Appellants., 1992 WL 12137618 (Appellate Brief) (Ohio Mar. 05, 1992) Brief of Appellant St. Elizabeth Medical Center (NO. 91-2079) 22 Jimmie Dean BROWNING, et al., Plaintiff-Appellees, v. James C. BURT, M.D., Defendant Max Blue, M.D. and St. Elizabeth Medical Center, Defendant-Appellants., 1992 WL 12137619 (Appellate Brief) (Ohio Mar. 06, 1992) Defendant-Appellant Dr. Max Blue's Brief (NO. 91-2079) 23 Coney MITCHELL, Appellee, v. James C. BURT, M.D., Defendant, St. Elizabeth Medical Center, Appellant., 1992 WL 12137631 (Appellate Brief) (Ohio Mar. 11, 1992) Brief of Appellant
St. Elizabeth Medical Center (NO. 91-2121) 24 Jimmie Dean BROWNING, et al., Appellees, v. James C. BURT, M.D., et al., Appellants. Coney Mitchell, Appellee, v. James C. Burt, M.D., et al., Appellants., 1992 WL 12137620 (Appellate Brief) (Ohio Jun. 12, 1992) Brief of Appellees Jimmie Dean Browning, Lawrence Browning and Coney Mitchell (NO. 91-2079, 91-2121) 25 Jimmie Dean BROWNING, et al., Plaintiff-Appellees, v. James C. BURT, M.D., Defendant Max Blue, M.D. and St. Elizabeth Medical Center, Defendant-Appellants., 1992 WL 12137621 (Appellate Brief) (Ohio Jul. 02, 1992) Defendant-Appellant Dr. Max Blue's Reply Brief (NO. 91-2079) 26 Jimmie Dean BROWNING, et al., Appellees, v. James C. BURT, M.D., Defendant, Max Blue, M.D., Et Al., Appellants. Coney Mitchell, Appellee, v. James C. Burt, M.D., Defendant, St. Elizabeth Medical Center, Appellant., 1992 WL 12137622 (Appellate Brief) (Ohio Jul. 21, 1992) Reply Brief of Appellant St. Elizabeth Medical Center (NO. 91-2079/2121)
Westlaw Delivery Summary Report for CROTTY,PATRICK Date/Time of Request: Client Identifier: Database: Citation Text: Service: Lines: Documents: Images: Monday, July 6, 2009 11:17 Central PATRICK CROTTY KEYCITE-REFS 613 N.E.2d 993 KeyCite 2080 1 0
Date of Printing: Jul 06, 2009 KEYCITE Browning v. Burt, 66 Ohio St.3d 544, 613 N.E.2d 993, 62 USLW 2116, 1993-Ohio-178 (Ohio Jun 30, 1993) (NO. 91-2079, 91-2121, 7672) Citing References Negative Cases (U.S.A.) Declined to Extend by 1 United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. St. Elizabeth Med. Ctr., 716 N.E.2d 1201, 1204+, 129 Ohio App.3d 45, 49+ (Ohio App. 2 Dist. Jul 10, 1998) (NO. 16518) " HN: 1,15 (N.E.2d) Distinguished by 2 Jett v. Interim Healthcare, 2008 WL 5104678, *2+, 2008-Ohio-6332, 6332+ (Ohio App. 2 Dist. Dec 05, 2008) (NO. 22727) " HN: 4,5 (N.E.2d) 3 Doe v. Archdiocese of Cincinnati, 849 N.E.2d 268, 273+, 109 Ohio St.3d 491, 495+, 2006-Ohio-2625, 2625+ (Ohio May 31, 2006) (NO. 2005-0702, 2005-0734, 2897) " HN: 12,13,14 (N.E.2d) 4 Cramer v. Archdiocese of Cincinnati, 814 N.E.2d 97, 101+, 158 Ohio App.3d 110, 115+, 2004-Ohio-3891, 3891+ (Ohio App. 1 Dist. Jul 23, 2004) (NO. C-030827, C-040061) Positive Cases (U.S.A.) Examined 5 Dicks v. U.S. Health Corp. of Southern Ohio, 1996 WL 263239, *1+ (Ohio App. 4 Dist. May 10, 1996) (NO. 95 CA 2350) " HN: 1,6,7 (N.E.2d) 6 Phillips v. Burt, 1995 WL 353861, *3+ (Ohio App. 2 Dist. Jun 14, 1995) (NO. 14532) " HN: 6,13,15 (N.E.2d) 7 Wilson v. Burt, 1994 WL 723506, *4+ (Ohio App. 2 Dist. Dec 07, 1994) (NO. 13096, 12389) " HN: 13,14,15 (N.E.2d) 8 Dresher v. Burt, 1994 WL 527675, *2+ (Ohio App. 2 Dist. Sep 28, 1994) (NO. 13088) " HN: 6,13,16 (N.E.2d) 9 Kennard v. Burt, 1994 WL 484167, *1+ (Ohio App. 2 Dist. Sep 09, 1994) (NO. 12388) " HN: 13,14,15 (N.E.2d) 10 Miles v. Burt, 1994 WL 483521, *2+ (Ohio App. 2 Dist. Sep 07, 1994) (NO. 13098) " HN: 12,13,14 (N.E.2d) 11 Kelsay v. Burt, 1994 WL 484180, *1+ (Ohio App. 2 Dist. Sep 07, 1994) (NO. 12463) " HN: 1,13,15 (N.E.2d) 12 Jeffery v. Burt, 1994 WL 484184, *2+ (Ohio App. 2 Dist. Sep 07, 1994) (NO. 13086) " HN:
13,14,15 (N.E.2d) 13 Chappell v. Burt, 1994 WL 484189, *2+ (Ohio App. 2 Dist. Sep 07, 1994) (NO. 13081) " HN: 6,13,16 (N.E.2d) 14 Hopkins v. Burt, 1994 WL 484202, *2+ (Ohio App. 2 Dist. Sep 07, 1994) (NO. 13094) " HN: 12,13,15 (N.E.2d) 15 Eiford v. Burt, 1994 WL 470319, *2+ (Ohio App. 2 Dist. Sep 02, 1994) (NO. 12392) " HN: 13,14,15 (N.E.2d) 16 Tripoli v. Burt, 1994 WL 483505, *2+ (Ohio App. 2 Dist. Aug 07, 1994) (NO. 13082) " HN: 12,13,14 (N.E.2d) 17 Moore v. Burt, 645 N.E.2d 749, 751+, 96 Ohio App.3d 520, 524+ (Ohio App. 2 Dist. Aug 03, 1994) (NO. 13097) " HN: 13,14,15 (N.E.2d) 18 Doe v. Lieberth, 2003 WL 25797041, *25797041+ (Trial Order) (Ohio Com.Pl. May 30, 2003) (NO. 03497920) Discussed 19 Norgard v. Brush Wellman, Inc., 766 N.E.2d 977, 979+, 95 Ohio St.3d 165, 167+, 2002-Ohio-2007, 2007+ (Ohio May 08, 2002) (NO. 2001-0063) " HN: 13,14 (N.E.2d) 20 Phillips v. Burt, 673 N.E.2d 1380, 1380+, 77 Ohio St.3d 1229, 1230+, 1997-Ohio-268, 268+ (Ohio Jan 22, 1997) (NO. 95-1522, 9498) (in dissent) HN: 15 (N.E.2d) 21 Dresher v. Burt, 662 N.E.2d 264, 265+, 75 Ohio St.3d 280, 280+, 1996-Ohio-107, 107+ (Ohio Mar 06, 1996) (NO. 94-2612, 9147) HN: 4 (N.E.2d) 22 Doe v. First United Methodist Church, 629 N.E.2d 402, 408+, 68 Ohio St.3d 531, 538+, 89 Ed. Law Rep. 580, 580+, 1994-Ohio-531, 531+ (Ohio Mar 30, 1994) (NO. 92-2392, 8064) " HN: 11,13,15 (N.E.2d) 23 Erwin v. Bryan, 2009 WL 418753, *4+, 2009-Ohio-758, 758+ (Ohio App. 5 Dist. Feb 10, 2009) (NO. 08-CA-28) " HN: 14 (N.E.2d) 24 Schelling v. Humphrey, 2007 WL 2965773, *2+, 2007-Ohio-5469, 5469+ (Ohio App. 6 Dist. Oct 12, 2007) (NO. WM-07-001) " HN: 1,6,7 (N.E.2d) 25 Summers v. Midwest Allergy Associates, Inc., 2002 WL 31894902, *3+, 2002-Ohio-7357, 7357+ (Ohio App. 10 Dist. Dec 31, 2002) (NO. 02AP-280) HN: 4,5,11 (N.E.2d) 26 Grandillo v. Montesclaros, 739 N.E.2d 863, 871+, 137 Ohio App.3d 691, 701+, 2000-Ohio-1839, 1839+ (Ohio App. 3 Dist. May 25, 2000) (NO. 13-99-49) " HN: 5,6 (N.E.2d) 27 Spriestersbach v. Ohio Edison Co., 1995 WL 641146, *2+ (Ohio App. 9 Dist. Nov 01, 1995) (NO. 95CA006026) " HN: 13,15 (N.E.2d) 28 Hanks v. Burt, 650 N.E.2d 955, 956+, 99 Ohio App.3d 403, 405+ (Ohio App. 2 Dist. Dec 21, 1994) (NO. 14616) " HN: 14 (N.E.2d) 29 Ginter v. Burt, 1994 WL 484196, *1+ (Ohio App. 2 Dist. Sep 07, 1994) (NO. 13091) " HN: 13,14 (N.E.2d) 30 Yearyean v. Burt, 1994 WL 472097, *2+ (Ohio App. 2 Dist. Sep 02, 1994) (NO. 12546) " HN: 13,15 (N.E.2d) 31 Koth v. Burt, 1994 WL 472230, *2+ (Ohio App. 2 Dist. Sep 02, 1994) (NO. 12391) " HN:
12,13,15 (N.E.2d) 32 Holmes v. Community College of Cuyahoga Cty., 647 N.E.2d 498, 502+, 97 Ohio App.3d 678, 684+, 98 Ed. Law Rep. 357, 357+ (Ohio App. 8 Dist. Aug 11, 1994) (NO. 66025) " HN: 1 (N.E.2d) 33 Jane DOE, #1, et. al, Plaintiffs, v. ARCHDIOCESE OF CINCINNATI, et. al, Defendants., 2004 WL 5346114, *5346114+ (Trial Order) (Ohio Com.Pl. Oct 08, 2004) Decision, Order and Entry Sustaining in Part and Overruling in Part Defendants' Motions to Dismiss Filed 5/14/04 and 6/25/04 (NO. 2004CV2016) HN: 11,15 (N.E.2d) 34 Pamela Jones MIDDLETON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Robert A. BAKER, M.D., et al., Defendants., 2003 WL 25293191, *25293191+ (Trial Order) (Ohio Com.Pl. May 14, 2003) Decision (NO. 2001-CVA-114) Cited 35 Harris v. Liston, 714 N.E.2d 377, 379, 86 Ohio St.3d 203, 203, 1999-Ohio-159, 159 (Ohio Aug 25, 1999) (NO. 98-1338, 73644) 36 Liddell v. SCA Serv. of Ohio, Inc., 635 N.E.2d 1233, 1238, 70 Ohio St.3d 6, 11, 1994-Ohio-328, 328 (Ohio Aug 03, 1994) (NO. 8231, 93-294) HN: 15 (N.E.2d) 37 Rome v. Flower Mem. Hosp., 635 N.E.2d 1239, 1241, 70 Ohio St.3d 14, 16, 1994-Ohio-43, 43 (Ohio Aug 03, 1994) (NO. 8211, 93-1517) HN: 4 (N.E.2d) 38 Desai v. Franklin, 895 N.E.2d 875, 883, 177 Ohio App.3d 679, 690, 2008-Ohio-3957, 3957 (Ohio App. 9 Dist. Aug 06, 2008) (NO. 23930, 23939) HN: 10 (N.E.2d) 39 Huntsman v. Aultman Hosp., 2008 WL 2572598, *7, 2008-Ohio-2554, 2554 (Ohio App. 5 Dist. May 27, 2008) (NO. 2006 CA 00331) HN: 16 (N.E.2d) 40 Legg v. Hallet, 2007 WL 4305900, *6+, 2007-Ohio-6595, 6595+ (Ohio App. 10 Dist. Dec 11, 2007) (NO. 07AP-170) HN: 6,16 (N.E.2d) 41 Doe v. Robinson, 2007 WL 3120279, *4, 2007-Ohio-5746, 5746 (Ohio App. 6 Dist. Oct 26, 2007) (NO. L-07-1051) HN: 10 (N.E.2d) 42 Craver v. Doogan, 2006 WL 902420, *1, 2006-Ohio-1783, 1783 (Ohio App. 12 Dist. Apr 10, 2006) (NO. CA2005-06-055) 43 Smith v. Manor Care of Canton, Inc., 2006 WL 636975, *4, 2006-Ohio-1182, 1182 (Ohio App. 5 Dist. Mar 13, 2006) (NO. 2005-CA-00100, 2005-CA-00174, 2005-CA-00160, 2005-CA-00162) 44 Akers v. Ohio State Univ. Med. Ctr., 2005 WL 2387615, *6, 2005-Ohio-5160, 5160 (Ohio App. 10 Dist. Sep 29, 2005) (NO. 04AP-575) HN: 16 (N.E.2d) 45 Brzozowski v. Univ. Hospitals Health Systems, 2005 WL 1245631, *2+, 2005-Ohio-2628, 2628+ (Ohio App. 8 Dist. May 26, 2005) (NO. 85097) HN: 6,16 (N.E.2d) 46 Doe v. Archdiocese of Cincinnati, 2005 WL 517345, *4, RICO Bus.Disp.Guide 10,857, 10857, 2005-Ohio-960, 960 (Ohio App. 3 Dist. Mar 07, 2005) (NO. 17-04-10) HN: 12 (N.E.2d) 47 Sutton v. Wukmir, 2004 WL 3090179, *3, 2004-Ohio-7215, 7215 (Ohio App. 7 Dist. Dec 28, 2004) (NO. 03-MA-233) 48 Doe v. Catholic Diocese of Cleveland, 813 N.E.2d 977, 985, 158 Ohio App.3d 49, 59, 2004-Ohio-3470, 3470 (Ohio App. 8 Dist. Jul 01, 2004) (NO. 82542, 83021) (in dissent)
49 Whiteman v. Rawitscher, 2003 WL 22149590, *2+, 2003-Ohio-4966, 4966+ (Ohio App. 6 Dist. Sep 19, 2003) (NO. L-02-1383) HN: 6,16 (N.E.2d) 50 Kay v. City Of Cleveland, 2003 WL 125280, *3+, 2003-Ohio-171, 171+ (Ohio App. 8 Dist. Jan 16, 2003) (NO. 81099) HN: 15 (N.E.2d) 51 Trangle v. Rojas, 782 N.E.2d 617, 622+, 150 Ohio App.3d 549, 555+, 2002-Ohio-6510, 6510+ (Ohio App. 8 Dist. Nov 27, 2002) (NO. 81190) HN: 6,16 (N.E.2d) 52 Wilson v. Barnesville Hosp., 783 N.E.2d 554, 558+, 151 Ohio App.3d 55, 60+, 2002-Ohio-5186, 5186+ (Ohio App. 7 Dist. Sep 27, 2002) (NO. 01 BA 40) HN: 6,16 (N.E.2d) 53 Ahmed v. University Hospitals Health Care System, Inc., 2002 WL 664026, *12, 2002-Ohio-1823, 1823 (Ohio App. 8 Dist. Apr 18, 2002) (NO. 79016) 54 Saltis v. Lakes Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc., 2001 WL 276346, *2 (Ohio App. 9 Dist. Mar 21, 2001) (NO. 20216) 55 West 11th Street Limited Partnership v. City of Cleveland, 2001 WL 112121, *9, 2001-Ohio-4233, 4233 (Ohio App. 8 Dist. Feb 08, 2001) (NO. 77327) HN: 9 (N.E.2d) 56 Vaccariello v. Smith & Nephew Richards, Inc., 2000 WL 1060649, *5 (Ohio App. 8 Dist. Aug 03, 2000) (NO. 76594) 57 Makris v. Scandinavian Health Spa, Inc., 1999 WL 759989, *2 (Ohio App. 7 Dist. Sep 20, 1999) (NO. 98 CA 183) 58 Talwar v. Kattan, 1999 WL 446435, *6+, 16 IER Cases 121, 121+, 1999-Ohio-803, 803+ (Ohio App. 3 Dist. Jun 17, 1999) (NO. 1-98-83) HN: 16 (N.E.2d) 59 Harris v. Youngstown Osteopathic Hosp., 1998 WL 574557, *3 (Ohio App. 7 Dist. Aug 26, 1998) (NO. 95 CA 129) " HN: 4 (N.E.2d) 60 Cooke v. Sisters of Mercy, 1998 WL 221320, *3+ (Ohio App. 12 Dist. May 04, 1998) (NO. CA97-09-181) HN: 5 (N.E.2d) 61 Sullivan v. St. Charles Hosp., 1997 WL 728624, *2 (Ohio App. 6 Dist. Nov 21, 1997) (NO. L97-1101) HN: 16 (N.E.2d) 62 Dutton v. Acromed Corp., 691 N.E.2d 738, 743+, 117 Ohio App.3d 804, 813+ (Ohio App. 8 Dist. Jan 27, 1997) (NO. 69332, 69333, 69358) " HN: 4 (N.E.2d) 63 Squire v. Castle Ins. Co., 1996 WL 761232, *4 (Ohio App. 11 Dist. Dec 13, 1996) (NO. 96-T-5399) HN: 9 (N.E.2d) 64 O'Neill v. St. Luke's Medical Center, 1996 WL 684343, *5+, 13 IER Cases 534, 534+ (Ohio App. 8 Dist. Nov 27, 1996) (NO. 70372) HN: 16 (N.E.2d) 65 Butler v. Jewish Hospitals, Inc., 1995 WL 256297, *1 (Ohio App. 1 Dist. May 03, 1995) (NO. C940119) HN: 5 (N.E.2d) 66 Kalb v. Morehead, 654 N.E.2d 1039, 1042+, 100 Ohio App.3d 696, 700+ (Ohio App. 4 Dist. Jan 26, 1995) (NO. 93 CA 2178, 93 CA 2179) HN: 6,13,16 (N.E.2d) 67 Greenstreet v. Bickers, 647 N.E.2d 214, 216+, 97 Ohio App.3d 610, 614+ (Ohio App. 8 Dist. Oct 12, 1994) (NO. 66680) " HN: 5 (N.E.2d) 68 Tomlin v. Burt, 1994 WL 514935, *1 (Ohio App. 2 Dist. Sep 23, 1994) (NO. 13099) HN: 3 (N.E.2d) 69 Priestman v. Elder, 646 N.E.2d 234, 237, 97 Ohio App.3d 86, 90 (Ohio App. 6 Dist. Sep 16,
1994) (NO. 93WD122) 70 Cox v. Burt, 1994 WL 470301, *1+ (Ohio App. 2 Dist. Sep 02, 1994) (NO. 13085) HN: 13,14 (N.E.2d) 71 State v. Jones, 1994 WL 287728, *2 (Ohio App. 1 Dist. Jun 29, 1994) (NO. C-930300, C930301) " 72 Kouba v. St. Francis Rehabilitation Center, 1994 WL 240287, *1+ (Ohio App. 6 Dist. Jun 03, 1994) (NO. S-93-34) HN: 4 (N.E.2d) 73 Allinder v. Mount Carmel Health, 1994 WL 49792, *3+ (Ohio App. 10 Dist. Feb 17, 1994) (NO. 93AP-156) HN: 5,6 (N.E.2d) 74 NCR Corp. v. U.S. Mineral Products Co., 1993 WL 386223, *1 (Ohio App. 2 Dist. Oct 01, 1993) (NO. 13931, 81-3339) " HN: 10 (N.E.2d) 75 Stewart v. Kennedy, 1993 WL 368967, *2 (Ohio App. 1 Dist. Sep 22, 1993) (NO. C-920152) HN: 14 (N.E.2d) 76 Diane HANEY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MIAMI VALLEY HOSPITAL, et al., Defendants., 2006 WL 4671179, *4671179 (Trial Order) (Ohio Com.Pl. Oct 12, 2006) Decision, Order and Entry Overruling Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Filed May 20, 2006 (NO. 05CV7130) " HN: 4 (N.E.2d) 77 John R. DIXON, Plaintiff, v. Marvin V. SIMES, et al., Defendant., 2006 WL 4453386, *4453386 (Trial Order) (Ohio Com.Pl. Mar 14, 2006) Decision Order and Entry Overruling Objections to the Magistrate's Decision and Adopting the Decision of the Magistrate (NO. 04CV0586) 78 McDonald v. Dillman, 2005 WL 6030052, *6030052 (Trial Order) (Ohio Com.Pl. Apr 27, 2005) Judgment Entry (NO. CV2002127284) 79 BUTLER COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, Plaintiff, v. UTILITY SERVICE & SUPPLY, et al., Defendants., 2005 WL 5106239, *5106239 (Trial Order) (Ohio Com.Pl. Jan 31, 2005) Decision and Entry Granting in Part and Denying in Part the Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendant, Shell Oil Company (NO. CV2001071492) 80 Leonard REITH, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Chatham WOODS, et al., Defendant., 2004 WL 5150635, *5150635 (Trial Order) (Ohio Com.Pl. Jun 16, 2004) Entry Granting Defendant McGill's Motion for Summary Judgment, Denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Denying Defendant Parrott's Motion for Summary Judgment (NO. A0204028) 81 Miller v. Archdiocese of Cincinnati, 2004 WL 5654943, *5654943 (Trial Order) (Ohio Com.Pl. Mar 30, 2004) Amended Entry Granting Defendants' Motions to Dismiss (NO. A0309010) 82 Phibbs v. Children's Hosp. Medical Center of Akron, 2004 WL 5518618, *5518618 (Trial Order) (Ohio Com.Pl. Mar 05, 2004) Order (NO. CV01031102) HN: 6,16 (N.E.2d) 83 RUTH HUNTSMAN, et al., Plaintiff(s), v. AULTMAN HOSPITAL, et al., Defendant(s)., 2003 WL 25452359, *25452359 (Trial Order) (Ohio Com.Pl. Jan 09, 2003) Judgment Entry (NO. 2002CV03227) 84 Vaccariello v. Smith & Nephew Richards, Inc., 1999 WL 1133317, *1 (Ohio Com.Pl. Jun 02, 1999) (NO. 300174) 85 Fuentes v. Zapata, 141 F.3d 1149, 1149 (1st Cir.(Puerto Rico) Apr 13, 1998) (Table, text in WESTLAW, NO. 97-1511) "
86 Lyons v. U.S., 2009 WL 997300, *5 (N.D.Ohio Apr 14, 2009) (NO. 4:03CV1620) HN: 2 (N.E.2d) 87 Twee Jonge Gezellen (PTY) Ltd. v. Owens-Illinois, 2007 WL 5061696, *7+ (N.D.Ohio Dec 18, 2007) (NO. 3:04 CV 7349) 88 Schatz v. New Haven Orthopedic Surgeons, P.C., 1999 WL 240741, *2, 24 Conn. L. Rptr. 393, 393 (Conn.Super. Apr 08, 1999) (NO. 415689) " HN: 4 (N.E.2d) 89 Manpower Temporary Services v. Sioson, 529 N.W.2d 259, 263, 98 Ed. Law Rep. 398, 398, 6 NDLR P 390, 390 (Iowa Feb 22, 1995) (NO. 93-1825) " HN: 4 (N.E.2d) 90 Larson v. Wasemiller, 738 N.W.2d 300, 309+ (Minn. Aug 16, 2007) (NO. A05-1701, A05-1698) " HN: 7 (N.E.2d) 91 Larson v. Wasemiller, 718 N.W.2d 461, 467 (Minn.App. Jul 25, 2006) (NO. A05-1698, A05-1701) " 92 Pena v. State, 191 S.W.3d 133, 138 (Tex.Crim.App. Apr 26, 2006) (NO. PD-0966-05) Mentioned 93 Peoples Rights Org., Inc. v. Montgomery, 756 N.E.2d 127, 157+, 142 Ohio App.3d 443, 481+ (Ohio App. 12 Dist. Apr 09, 2001) (NO. CA2000-04-018) HN: 8,9 (N.E.2d) 94 Andrew L. MORRIS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL, et al., Defendants., 2000 WL 35504878, *35504878 (Trial Order) (Ohio Com.Pl. Dec 01, 2000) Decision and Judgment Entry Denying Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Filed on May 2, 2000 (NO. 99CVA04-3371) 95 Andrew L. MORRIS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL, et al., Defendants., 2000 WL 35490405, *35490405 (Trial Order) (Ohio Com.Pl. Nov 30, 2000) Decision and Judgment Entry Denying Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Filed on May 2,2000 (NO. 99CVA04-3371) 96 Metz v. Unizan Bank, 416 F.Supp.2d 568, 576, 58 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 1075, 1075 (N.D.Ohio Feb 24, 2006) (NO. 5:05CV1510) 97 Eads v. Borman, 2007 WL 4478763, *4478763 (Trial Order) (Or.Cir. Mar 29, 2007) (NO. 05C18610) HN: 13 (N.E.2d) 98 Stottlemyer v. Ghramm, 2001 WL 34084307, *3, 60 Va. Cir. 474, 474 (Va.Cir.Ct. Jul 13, 2001) (NO. 91-L-181) State Administrative Materials (U.S.A.) 99 JOHN KUBA, CLAIMANT v. MEDIACOM, EMPLOYER AND TRAVELERS INSURANCE CO., INSURANCE CARRIER, DEFENDANTS, 2008 WL 256778, *1+ (Iowa Workers' Comp. Com'n Jan 23, 2008) (NO. FILE NUMBER: 5023110) " HN: 4 (N.E.2d) 100 MODESTO PAULINO, CLAIMANT v. C-TEC INC., EMPLOYER AND COMMERCE & INDUSTRY INS. CO., INSURANCE CARRIER, DEFENDANTS, 2007 WL 3264017, *6 (Iowa Workers' Comp. Com'n Oct 30, 2007) (NO. FILE NUMBER: 5019047) " HN: 4 (N.E.2d) Secondary Sources (U.S.A.) 101 Tort Claim for Negligent Credentialing of Physician, 98 A.L.R.5th 533 (2002) HN: 1,7,13,14,15 (N.E.2d)
102 Medical malpractice: who are "health care providers," or the like, whose actions fall within statutes specifically governing actions and damages for medical malpractice, 12 A.L.R.5th 1 (1993) 103 AHLA Seminar Materials P02109939, Medical Staff Bylaws: Related Documents and Advanced Issues HN: 7 (N.E.2d) 104 AHLA Seminar Materials P03129715, Medical Staff Bylaws and Related Documents: Advanced Issues HN: 7 (N.E.2d) 105 AHLA Seminar Materials P04179614, Medical Staff Bylaws and Related Documents: Advanced Issues HN: 7 (N.E.2d) 106 AHLA Seminar Materials P04239804, Medical Staff Issues 107 AHLA Seminar Materials P06089406, Case Law Update: Review and Emerging Trends 108 AHLA Seminar Materials P06270502, Year in Review HN: 5,7 (N.E.2d) 109 AHLA Seminar Materials P10049917, Hospital Medical Staffs and Managed Care Provider Panels Organization and Credentialing HN: 7 (N.E.2d) 110 AHLA Seminar Materials P11080615, K. Hospital Medical Staff and Managed Care Provider Panels: Organization and Credentialing 111 AHLA Seminar Materials P11100413, Medical Staff Bylaws and Managed Care Provider Panels: Organization and Credentialing 112 AHLA Seminar Materials P11120313, Medical Staff Bylaws and Managed Care Provider Panels: Organization and Credentialing 113 AHLA Seminar Materials P11130211, Medical Staff Bylaws and Managed Care Provider Panels: Organization and Credentialing 114 AHLA Seminar Materials P12020718, J. Hospital Medical Staff Basics: Tips for Addressing Legal and Operational Issues 115 American Law of Medical Malpractice s 7:8, Statutory codifications (2009) HN: 6 (N.E.2d) 116 Baldwin's Ohio Practice Tort Law APP C, Appendix C. 2001 Sub. Senate Bill 108 Legislative Service Commission Bill Analysis, 1996 House Bill 350 Legislative Service Commission Bill Analysis, and 1996 House Bill 350 Text (2008) 117 Baldwin's Ohio Practice Tort Law s 8:27, Theories of liability--Medical negligence--Standard of care--Specific defendants--Hospitals (2008) HN: 2 (N.E.2d) 118 Baldwin's Ohio Practice Tort Law s 8:3, Screening of potential claims--Statute of limitations (2008) HN: 7 (N.E.2d) 119 Baldwin's Ohio Practice Tort Law s 8:48, Theories of liability--Negligent credentialing/peer review/supervision (2008) HN: 6 (N.E.2d) 120 BNA Health Law & Business Series No. 1000 WP B, Negligent Credentialing Minnesota Supreme Court Larson v. Wasemiller (2008) 121 20 NO. 20 Insurance Litigation Reporter 881, NEGLIGENT CREDENTIALING CLAIMS AGAINST HOSPITAL NOT COVERED BY GENERAL LIABILITY INSURANCE POLICY Claims Are Covered by Hospital's Self-Insurance for Professional Malpractice United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co. v. St (1998) 122 Modern Tort Law: Liability and Litigation 2d s 25:132, Duty of hospitals--Specific hospital duties--Competent professional staff (2009)
123 Ohio Jurisprudence Pleading and Practice Forms s 109:10, Pre-suit information gathering (2009) HN: 16,17 (N.E.2d) 124 Ohio Jurisprudence Pleading and Practice Forms s 109:25, Health-related committees (2009) HN: 6,16 (N.E.2d) 125 Ohio Personal Injury Practice s 2:14, Medical malpractice cases--Peer review documents (2009) HN: 16 (N.E.2d) 126 14 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 433, Hospital Liability For Negligent Selection of Staff Physician (2009) 127 15 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 181, Hospital Liability for Negligent Retention of Staff Physician (2009) 128 19 Am. Jur. Trials 431, Defending Hospital--Negligence of Physician-Employee (2009) 129 91 Am. Jur. Trials 151, When Clergy Fail Their Flock: Litigating the Clergy Sexual Abuse Case (2009) 130 Am. Jur. 2d Physicians, Surgeons, and Other Healers s 295, Applicable statute (2009) HN: 1 (N.E.2d) 131 CJS Hospitals s 40, Supervision of treatment; physician competence (2009) HN: 6,16 (N.E.2d) 132 CJS Hospitals s 43, Theories of liability (2009) 133 OH Jur. 3d Limitations & Laches s 49, Personal injury actions (2009) 134 OH Jur. 3d Limitations & Laches s 80, Personal or bodily injury; negligence generally-Discovery rule (2009) 135 ARE WE PROTECTED FROM HMO NEGLIGENCE?: AN EXAMINATION OF OHIO LAW, ERISA PREEMPTION, AND LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVES, 30 Akron L. Rev. 501, 538+ (1997) HN: 5,6 (N.E.2d) 136 THE SCOPE OF A PHYSICIAN'S MEDICAL PRACTICE: IS THE PUBLIC ADEQUATELY PROTECTED BY STATE MEDICAL LICENSURE, PEER REVIEW, AND THE NATIONAL PRACTITIONER DATA BANK?, 14 Annals Health L. 329, 359 (2005) HN: 16 (N.E.2d) 137 QUALITY ASSURANCE AND HOSPITAL STRUCTURE: HOW THE PHYSICIAN-HOSPITAL RELATIONSHIP AFFECTS QUALITY MEASURES, 12 Annals Health L. 235, 247 (2003) HN: 16 (N.E.2d) 138 ST. LUKE'S EPISCOPAL HOSPITAL v. AGBOR: THE END OF NEGLIGENT CREDENTIALING, 50 Baylor L. Rev. 251, 266+ (1998) HN: 16 (N.E.2d) 139 THE OHIO SUPREME COURT SETS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS AND ADOPTS THE DISCOVERY RULE FOR CHILDHOOD SEXUAL ABUSE ACTIONS: NOW IT IS TIME FOR LEGISLATIVE ACTION!, 43 Clev. St. L. Rev. 499, 528 (1995) HN: 14 (N.E.2d) 140 YOU DO KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING? RIGHT, DOC? MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT CONTEMPLATES NEGLIGENT CREDENTIALING AND PRIVILEGING, 30 Hamline L. Rev. 125, 162 (2007) 141 THE POLITICS OF JUDICIAL DECISION-MAKING IN EDUCATIONAL POLICY REFORM LITIGATION, 55 Hastings L.J. 1077, 1233 (2004) 142 CENTRALIZED CREDENTIALLING, 9-FALL Health Law. 12, 20 (1996) 143 LIABILITY, REGULATION AND POLICY IN SURGICAL INNOVATION: THE CUTTING
EDGE OF RESEARCH AND THERAPY, 16 Health Matrix 351, 442+ (2006) HN: 13 (N.E.2d) 144 CONFIDENTIALITY AND PRIVILEGE OF PEER REVIEW INFORMATION: MORE IMAGINED THAN REAL, 7 J.L. & Health 169, 197 (1993) HN: 16 (N.E.2d) 145 MEDICAL MALPRACTICE LAW, MORALITY AND THE CULTURE WARS A Critical Assessment of the Tort Reform Movement, 27 J. Legal Med. 33, 53+ (2006) 146 PREFACE, 20 Ohio N.U. L. Rev. 1105, 1108+ (1994) HN: 12,14 (N.E.2d) 147 OHIO COURT DECISIONS: 1992-93, 20 Ohio N.U. L. Rev. 379, 402 (1993) 148 NEGLIGENCE: STRUBHART v. PERRY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL: TAMING THE MONSTER OF CORPORATE NEGLIGENCE OR CREATING AN UNPREDICTABLE FORM OF HOSPITAL LIABILITY?, 48 Okla. L. Rev. 797, 815 (1995) 149 TORT REFORM'S THREAT TO AN INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY, 33 Rutgers L.J. 835, 835 (2002) 150 HEALTH CARE ENTITIES: A WORLD OF PRIVILEGE AND IMMUNITY?, 49-JAN Fed. Law. 32, 33 (2002) HN: 16 (N.E.2d) 151 NEGLIGENT CREDENTIALING: OHIO EXPANDS HOSPITAL LIABILITY IN THE WAKE OF "SURGERY OF LOVE," Browning v. Burt, 613 N.E.2d 993 (Ohio 1993)., 63 U. Cin. L. Rev. 607, 608+ (1994) HN: 5,11,13 (N.E.2d) 152 SELECTED CASES: LIABILITY THEORIES AND BURDEN OF PROOF, SN031 American Law Institute-American Bar Association 41 (2008) HN: 6,14 (N.E.2d) 153 DEVELOPMENTS IN THE LAW: LIABILITY THEORIES AND BURDEN OF PROOF, SM007 American Law Institute-American Bar Association 41 (2006) 154 TORT LIABILITY, SK072 American Law Institute-American Bar Association 89 (2005) 155 DEVELOPMENTS IN THE LAW: THEORIES OF LIABILITY, SJ092 American Law InstituteAmerican Bar Association 73 (2004) 156 TORT LIABILITY OF PHYSICIANS, HOSPITALS, AND OTHER HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS, SG095 American Law Institute-American Bar Association 29 (2002) 157 RECENT DECISIONS ON INSTITUTIONAL AND PRACTITIONER LIABILITY, SB19 American Law Institute-American Bar Association 35 (1996) HN: 12 (N.E.2d) 158 WINTER2003 ATLA - Convention Reference Material 577, WHEN CLERGY FAIL THEIR FLOCK-INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES FOR PREVENTION, HEALING, AND JUSTICE (2003) 159 9/19/94 BNA Toxics Law Daily D2, Chlorine Gas: OHIO HIGH COURT EXTENDS DISCOVERY RULE TO TOXIC EXPOSURE SUITS INVOLVING CHLORINE (1994) 160 1/5/94 BNA U.S. Law Week - Supreme Court Today D2, Appellate Docket LIST OF CASES CARRIED OVER TO THE 1993-94 APPELLATE DOCKET (1994) 161 12/3/93 BNA U.S. Law Week - Supreme Court Today (1993) 162 A POTENT PRIVILEGE Malicious Credentialing Claims, 47 NO. 11 DRI For the Defense 48 (2006) HN: 14 (N.E.2d) 163 MEDICAL MALPRACTICE DEVELOPMENTS, 700 Practising Law Institute Commercial Law and Practice 563 (1994) HN: 7 (N.E.2d) Court Documents
Appellate Court Documents (U.S.A.) Appellate Petitions, Motions and Filings 164 Survivor DOE, et al., Appellees, v. Gerald ROBINSON et al., Appellants., 2008 WL 974805, *974805 (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (Ohio Jan 03, 2008) Survivor Does' Memorandum In Opposition to Jurisdiction (NO. 2007-2271) 165 Loretta SCHELLING, et al., Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Stephen HUMPHREY, M.D., et al., Defendant/Appellant., 2007 WL 5082290, *5082290+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (Ohio Dec 21, 2007) Memorandum in Opposition to Jurisdiction of Appellee Loretta Schelling (NO. 2007-2202) 166 Donna GRIMME, et al., Appellees, v. TWIN VALLEY COMMUNITY LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al., Appellants., 2007 WL 5082278, *5082278+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (Ohio Dec 06, 2007) Memorandum in Support of Jurisdiction of Appellant Fanning/howey Associates, Inc. (NO. 2007-2184) 167 Joseph A. PINGUE, Senior, Appellant, v. Joseph A. PINGUE, Junior, Appellee., 2007 WL 5082201, *5082201+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (Ohio Nov 30, 2007) Memorandum in Response of Plaintiff/Appellee (NO. 07-2039) 168 Loretta SCHELLING, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. COMMUNITY HOSPITALS OF WILLIAMS COUNTY, Defendant-Appellant., 2007 WL 5082289, *5082289+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (Ohio Nov 26, 2007) Memorandum of Amicus Curiae, Ohio Hospital Association, in Support of Jurisdiction (NO. 07-2202) 169 Loretta SCHELLING, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. COMMUNITY HOSPITALS OF WILLIAMS COUNTY, Defendant/Appellant., 2007 WL 5082288, *5082288+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (Ohio Nov 20, 2007) Memorandum in Support of Jurisdiction of Appellant Community Hospitals of Williams County (NO. 07-2202) 170 John DOE, et al. and Mary Moe, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF CLEVELAND, et al., Defendants-Appellees., 2006 WL 4823034, *4823034+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (Ohio Nov 22, 2006) Memorandum in Support of Jurisdiction of Plaintiffs-Appellants (NO. 2006-2164) 171 Sandra K. RICHARDS, et al., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. George M. KERLAKIAN, M.D., et al., Defendants-Appellants., 2005 WL 5469349, *5469349+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (Ohio Oct 10, 2005) Memorandum in Support of Jurisdiction of Appellants George M. Kerlakian, M.D. and Group Health Associates, Inc. (NO. 2005-1905) 172 Nancy L. JOHNSON, et al, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Antoine Said MUNTHER, M.D., DefendantAppellee., 2005 WL 5489199, *5489199+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (Ohio Sep 13, 2005) Memorandum by Antoine Said Munther, M.D., in Opposition to Appellants' Memorandum in Support of Claimed Jurisdiction (NO. 2005-1584) 173 Christine A. BRZOZOWSKI, Executrix of the Estate of Lewis Richter, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellants., 2005 WL 5478832, *5478832+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (Ohio Jul 21, 2005) Memorandum in Support of Jurisdiction (NO. 2005-1332) 174 John DOE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ARCHDIOCESE OF CINCINNATI, et al., Defendants-Appel-
lants., 2005 WL 5431146, *5431146+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (Ohio Apr 21, 2005) Memorandum in Support of Jurisdiction of Appellants the Archdiocese of Cincinnati and Archbishop Daniel Pilarczyk (NO. 05-0702) 175 Bruce GEHRING, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ARCHDIOCESE OF CINCINNATI, et al., Defendants-Appellees., 2005 WL 5434375, *5434375+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (Ohio Mar 15, 2005) Memorandum in Opposition to Jurisdiction of Defendants-Appellees the Archdiocese of Cincinnati and Archbishop Daniel Pilarczyk (NO. 2005-0330) 176 John Doe Numbers 1-7, 11, 12, 14-20, 22, 24-28, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Archdiocese of Cincinnati, et al., Defendants-Appellees., 2005 WL 5434047, *5434047+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (Ohio Mar 09, 2005) Memorandum in Opposition to Jurisdiction of DefendantsAppellees the Archdiocese of Cincinnati and Archbishop Daniel Pilarczyk (NO. 2005-0262) 177 Christy MILLER, Jane Doe #2, Teresa Ringel and John Doe Numbers 1-17, 19-25, 32-37, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ARCHDIOCESE OF CINCINNATI, et al., Defendants-Appellees., 2005 WL 5434050, *5434050+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (Ohio Mar 09, 2005) Memorandum in Opposition to Jurisdiction of Defendants-Appellees the Archdiocese of Cincinnati and Archbishop Daniel Pilarczyk (NO. 2005-0263) 178 Bruce GEHRING, et al., Appellants, v. ARCHDIOCESE OF CINCINNATI, et al., Appellees., 2005 WL 5434374, *5434374+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (Ohio Feb 14, 2005) Memorandum in Support of Jurisdiction of Appellants Bruce Gehring, et al. (NO. 2005-0330) 179 John Doe Numbers 1-7, 11, 12,14-20, 22, 24-28, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ARCHDIOCESE OF CINCINNATI, et al., Defendants-Appellees., 2005 WL 5434045, *5434045+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (Ohio Feb 07, 2005) Memorandum in Support of Jurisdiction of Appellants (NO. 2005-0262) 180 Christy MILLER, Jane Doe #2, Teresa Ringel, And John Doe Numbers 1-17, 19-25, 32-37, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ARCHDIOCESE OF CINCINNATI, et al., Defendants-Appellees., 2005 WL 5434048, *5434048+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (Ohio Feb 07, 2005) Memorandum In Support of Jurisdiction of Appellants (NO. 2005-0263) 181 Jane B. DOE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF CLEVELAND, et al, Defendants-Appellees., 2004 WL 5299897, *5299897+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (Ohio Oct 29, 2004) Response of Defendants-Appellees, Catholic Diocese of Cleveland and St. Joseph Church, to Appellant Jane B. Doe's Memorandum in Support of Jurisdiction (NO. 2004-1637) 182 Joseph A. PINGUE, Jr., Appellant, v. Joseph A. PINGUE, Sr., Appellee., 2004 WL 5303226, *5303226+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (Ohio Oct 25, 2004) Appellee Joseph A. Pingue, Sr.'s Memorandum in response to Appellant Joseph A. Pingue, Jr.'s Memorandum in Support of Jurisdictio (NO. 04-1591) 183 Joseph CRAMER, et al, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ARCHDIOCESE OF CINCINNATI, et al, Defendants-Appellees., 2004 WL 5303124, *5303124+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (Ohio Oct 06, 2004) Memorandum in Opposition to Jurisdiction of Appellee the Archdiocese of Cincinnati (NO. 04-1482) 184 Jane B. DOE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF CLEVELAND, et al, Defend-
ants-Appellees., 2004 WL 5299896, *5299896+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (Ohio Oct 01, 2004) Memorandum in Support of Jurisdiction of Appellant Jane B. Doe (NO. 2004-1637) 185 Sheila MARSHALL, Appellant, v. HENRY FISCHER BUILDERS, Appellee., 2004 WL 5303182, *5303182 (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (Ohio Sep 16, 2004) Memorandum in Support of Jurisdiction of Appellant Sheila Marshall (NO. 04-1538) 186 Joseph CRAMER, Richard Dorn, Robert Wanninger, Nicholas Ferry, Michael Vonderheide, Harry Schulte, and Barbara Schulte, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ARCHDIOCESE OF CINCINNATI, and John Berning, Defendants-Appellees., 2004 WL 5303123, *5303123+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (Ohio Sep 07, 2004) Memorandum in Support of Jurisdiction of Appellants Joseph Cramer, Richard Dorn, Robert Wanninger, Nicholas Ferry, Michael Vonderheide, Harry Schulte, and Barbara Schulte (NO. 04-1482) 187 Jane DOE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MOUNT CARMEL HEALTH SYSTEM, et al., Defendant-Appellant., 2004 WL 5293309, *5293309+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (Ohio Jun 07, 2004) Plaintiff-Appellee Jane Doe's Memorandum in Opposition to Jurisdiction (NO. 2004-0759) 188 UHHS GEAUGA REGIONAL HOSPITAL, Appellant, v. Azzam N. AHMED, M.D., Appellee., 2002 WL 32576269, *32576269+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (Ohio Jun 13, 2002) Memorandum in Support of Jurisdiction of Appellant UHHS Geauga Regional Hospital (NO. 2002-0993) 189 Theresa Bea FLYNN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ST. VINCENT MERCY MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant-Appellee., 2001 WL 34559854, *34559854+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (Ohio Nov 26, 2001) Defendant-Appellee St. Vincent Mercy Medical Center's Memorandum in Response to Plaintiff-Appellant's Memorandum in Support of Jurisdiction (NO. 2001-2001) 190 Theresa Bea FLYNN, Appellant, v. ST. VINCENT MERCY MEDICAL CENTER, Appellee., 2001 WL 34559855, *34559855 (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (Ohio Nov 09, 2001) Memorandum in Support of Jurisdiction of Appellant, Theresa Bea Flynn (NO. 2001-2001) 191 Connie RUSHFORD, Appellant, v. Juanita CAINES, Executor Estate of Curtis Fields, Deceased et al., Appellees., 2001 WL 34558351, *34558351+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (Ohio May 08, 2001) Memorandum in Support of Jurisdiction of Appellant Connie Rushford (NO. 2001-0883) 192 David and Theresa NORGARD, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BRUSH WELLMAN INC., DefendantAppellees., 2001 WL 34558958, *34558958+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (Ohio Feb 12, 2001) Brush Wellman's Response to David Norgard's Jurisdictional Memorandum (NO. 2001-0063) 193 David & Theresa NORGARD, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BRUSH WELLMAN, INC. Defendant-Appellee., 2001 WL 34558953, *34558953+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (Ohio Jan 11, 2001) Memorandum in Support of Jurisdiction of Appellants David and Theresa Norgard (NO. 2001-0063) 194 Nancy L. GRANDILLO, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Adolben MONTESCLAROS, M.D. et al., Defendants/Appellees., 2000 WL 34337104, *34337104+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing)
(Ohio Aug 08, 2000) Defendant/Appellee Mercy Hospital's Memorandum In Response (Opposing Jurisdiction) (NO. 2000-1237) 195 Jon BROWN, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. QUIMBY MATERIAL HANDLING, INC., Defendant/Appellee., 2000 WL 34336894, *34336894 (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (Ohio Jul 26, 2000) Memorandum in Support of Jurisdiction of Appellant Jon Brown (NO. 2000-1342) 196 Roger H. JOHNSON, et al., Appellants, v. ALLIED SIGNAL, INC., et al., Defendants, Classic Aero Service, Inc., Appellee., 1999 WL 33838496, *33838496 (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (Ohio Nov 22, 1999) Memorandum in Support of Jurisdiction of Appellants Roger H. Johnson and Jane A. Johnson (NO. 99-2097) 197 Rose A. BARKER, et al, Appellants, v. Traci J. GIBSON, Appellee., 1999 WL 33840085, *33840085 (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (Ohio Apr 19, 1999) Memorandum Opposing the Jurisdiction of Appellee, Traci J. Gibson (NO. 99-561) 198 Rose A. BARKER, et al., Appellants, v. Traci J. GIBSON, Appellee., 1999 WL 33840086, *33840086+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (Ohio Mar 25, 1999) Memorandum in Support of Jurisdiction of Appellant Rose A. Barker, et al. (NO. 99-561) 199 UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY, Appellee, v. ST. ELIZABETH MEDICAL CENTER, et al., Appellant., 1998 WL 34276284, *34276284 (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (Ohio Sep 23, 1998) Memorandum Opposing Jurisdiction of Appellee United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company (NO. 98-1751) 200 UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY, Appellee. v. ST. ELIZABETH MEDICAL CENTER, et al., Appellant., 1998 WL 34276287, *34276287 (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (Ohio Aug 24, 1998) Memorandum in Support of Jurisdiction of Appellant St. Elizabeth Medical Center (NO. 98-1751) 201 John DOE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Fr. Edward F. RUPP, et al., Defendants-Appellees., 1998 WL 34277042, *34277042+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (Ohio Mar 20, 1998) Memorandum in Support of Jurisdiction of Appellant John Doe (NO. 98-0571) 202 Norbert E. FRONCZAK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ARTHUR ANDERSEN, L.L.P., et al., Defendants-Appellants., 1998 WL 34272795, *34272795 (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (Ohio Jan 08, 1998) Memorandum in Support of Jurisdiction of Plaintiff-Appellant, Norbert E. Fronczak (NO. 98-0062) 203 Mark H. WALL, M.D., Appellant, v. OHIO PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, et al., Appellees., 1997 WL 33757840, *33757840+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (Ohio Aug 29, 1997) Joint Memorandum of Appellees Ohio Permanente Medical Group, Inc., Ronald G. Potts, M.D., Roland Philip, M.D., Mark Feingold M.D., and Roland Copeland, M.D. in Opposition to Jurisdiction (NO. 97-1605) 204 Mark H. WALL, M.D., Plaintiff/Appellant, v. OHIO PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, Et Al., Defendants/Appellees., 1997 WL 33757842, *33757842 (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (Ohio Aug 29, 1997) St. Luke's Medical Center and Helmut Schreiber, M.D.'s Memorandum in Opposition of Jurisdiction (NO. 97-1605) 205 Doris COLBY, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL CO., L.P., et al., Defendants-Appellees., 1997 WL 33759111, *33759111+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (Ohio Mar 27, 1997) Memorandum in Support of Jurisdiction of Appellants Terminix Inter-
national Co., L.P. and State Termite and Pest Control Co. (NO. 97-0643) 206 Michael A. GUREASKO, M.D., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BETHESDA HOSPITAL, Philip Edelstein, M.D. and Pamela Lockwood, M.D., Defendants-Appellees., 1997 WL 33759172, *33759172 (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (Ohio Feb 28, 1997) Memorandum of Defendant-Appellee Bethesda Hospital, Inc. in Opposition to Jurisdiction (NO. 97-0257) Appellate Briefs 207 TWEE JONGE GEZELLEN (PTY) LTD., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC.; Owens-Brockway Glass Container, Inc., Defendants - Appellees., 2007 WL 1706998, *1706998+ (Appellate Brief) (6th Cir. Feb 22, 2007) Final Brief of the Appellant (NO. 06-4368) 208 TWEE JONGE GEZELLEN (PTY) LTD., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC.; OWENS-BROCKWAY GLASS CONTAINER, INC., Defendants - Appellees., 2007 WL 1707002, *1707002+ (Appellate Brief) (6th Cir. Feb 22, 2007) Final Reply Brief of the Appellant (NO. 06-4368) 209 TWEE JONGE GEZELLEN LTD., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC.; OwensBrockway Glass Container Inc., Defendants-Appellees., 2007 WL 1707001, *1707001+ (Appellate Brief) (6th Cir. Feb 20, 2007) Final Brief of Defendants-Appellees Owens-Illinois, Inc. and Owens-Brockway Glass Container Inc. (NO. 06-4368) 210 Suzanne K. DUNN, Plaintiff Appellant, v. ETHICON INC. et al., Defendants and Appellees., 2004 WL 3092167, *3092167+ (Appellate Brief) (6th Cir. Nov 18, 2004) Final Brief of Appellees Ethicon Inc., Johnson & Johnson and Owens & Minor Distributuion Inc. (NO. 04-3826) HN: 1 (N.E.2d) 211 Carol KAUNTZ and Dennis Kauntz, Plaintiff/Appellants, v. HCA HEALTHONE, LLC d/b/a North Suburban Medical Center, a Colorado Limited Liability Company, Defendant/Appellee., 2006 WL 4391626, *4391626+ (Appellate Brief) (Colo.App. Jul 18, 2006) Plaintiff-Appellants' Reply Brief (NO. 2005CA2341) HN: 7 (N.E.2d) 212 Carol KAUNTZ and Dennis Kauntz, Plaintiff-Appellants, v. HCA-HEALTHONE, LLC d/b/a North Suburban Medical Center, a Colorado Limited Liability Company, Defendant-Appellee., 2006 WL 4391625, *4391625+ (Appellate Brief) (Colo.App. Jun 15, 2006) Defendant-Appellee's Answer Brief (NO. 05CA2341) HN: 16 (N.E.2d) 213 Carol KAUNTZ and Dennis Kauntz, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. HCA-HEALTHONE, LLC d/b/a North Suburban Medical Center, a Colorado Limited Liability Company, Defendants-Appellees., 2006 WL 4391627, *4391627+ (Appellate Brief) (Colo.App. Apr 10, 2006) Brief of Amicus Curiae Antonio L. Snipes (NO. 05CA2341) " HN: 6,16 (N.E.2d) 214 Carol KAUNTZ and Dennis Kauntz, Plaintiff/Appellants, v. HCA HEALTHONE, LLC d/b/a North Suburban Medical Center, a Colorado Limited Liability Company, Defendant/Appellee., 2006 WL 4391629, *4391629+ (Appellate Brief) (Colo.App. Apr 10, 2006) Plaintiff-Appellants' Opening Brief (NO. 2005CA2341) HN: 16,17 (N.E.2d) 215 H . Ray HARRISON , Plaintiff-Appellant , Julie ANDERSON, Plaintiff, v. D. Lee BINNION, M.D. And Saint Alphonsus Regional Medical Center, Inc., An Idaho Non-profit Corporation, Defendants-Respondents, Jeffrey HARTFORD, M.D., Defendant., 2008 WL 4143669, *4143669+ (Appellate Brief) (Idaho Aug 13, 2008) Respondent's Brief (NO. 34731) HN: 16
(N.E.2d) 216 H. Ray HARRISON, Plaintiff/Appellant, Julie ANDERSON, husband and wife, Plaintiff, v. D. Lee BINNION, M.D., and Saint Regional Medical Center, Inc., an Idaho non-profit Corporation, Defendants/Respondents, JEFFERY HARTFORD, M.D., Defendant., 2008 WL 2623739, *2623739+ (Appellate Brief) (Idaho Jun 18, 2008) Appellant's Opening Brief (NO. 34731) HN: 16,17 (N.E.2d) 217 STONE CONTAINER CORP. and National Union Fire Insurance Company, Petitioners-Appellants, v. Walker H. CASTLE, Respondent-Appellee., 2001 WL 35712631, *35712631+ (Appellate Brief) (Iowa Dec 05, 2001) Final Brief and Argument for Appellee (NO. 01-1291) HN: 4 (N.E.2d) 218 STONE CONTAINER CORP., and National Union Fire Insurance Company, Petitioners-Appellants, v. Walker H. CASTLE, Respondent-Appellee., 2001 WL 35712632, *35712632+ (Appellate Brief) (Iowa Nov 26, 2001) Reply Brief and Argument for Appellants (NO. 01-1291) HN: 4,5 (N.E.2d) 219 Mary LARSON and Michael Larson, Appellants, v. James Preston WASEMILLER, M.D., Respondent Defendant, Paul Scot Wasemiller, M.D. and Dakota Clinic, Ltd., Defendants, St. Francis Medical Center, Respondent, Minnesota Hospital Association, Minnesota Medical Association, and American Medical Association, Minnesota Defense Lawyers Association, Amicus Curiae., 2006 WL 4756187, *4756187+ (Appellate Brief) (Minn. Dec 18, 2006) Brief and Appendix of Respondent St. Francis Medical Center (NO. A05-1698, A05-1701) HN: 16 (N.E.2d) 220 Mary and Michael LARSON, Appellants, v. James Preston WASEMILLER, M.D., Respondent (A05-1698), Defendant (A05-1701), Paul Scot Wasemiller, M.D. and Dakota Clinic, Ltd., Defendants (A05-1698), St. Francis Medical Center, Respondent (A05-1701)., 2006 WL 4756188, *4756188+ (Appellate Brief) (Minn. Dec 18, 2006) Brief and Appendix of Respondent James Preston Wasemiller, M.D. (NO. A05-1698, A05-1701) 221 Mary and Michael LARSON, Appellants, v. James Preston WASEMILLER, M.D., Respondent (A05-1698), Defendant (A05-1701), Paul Scot Wasemiller, M.D., et.al., Defendants (A05-1698), St. Francis Medical Center, Respondent (A05-1701)., 2006 WL 4756186, *4756186+ (Appellate Brief) (Minn. Nov 16, 2006) Brief, Addendum and Appendix of Appellants Mary Larson and Michael Larson (NO. A05-1698, A05-1701) HN: 16 (N.E.2d) 222 Mary and Michael LARSON, Respondents, v. James Preston WASEMILLER, M.D., Appellant (A405-1698), Defendant (A05-1701), Paul Scot Wasemiller, M.D. and Dakota Clinic, Ltd., Defendants (A05-1698), St. Francis Medical Center, Appellant (A05-1701)., 2005 WL 4662969, *4662969+ (Appellate Brief) (Minn.App. Dec 15, 2005) Reply Brief of Appellant James Preston Wasemiller, M.D. (NO. A05-1698, A05-1701) 223 Mary LARSON and Michael Larson, Respondents, v. James Preston WASEMILLER, M.D., Appellant (A05-1698), Defendant (A05-1701), Paul Scot Wasemiller, M.D. and Dakota Clinic, Ltd., Defendant (A05-1698), St. Francis Medical Center, Appellant (A05-1701), Minnesota Hospital Association, Minnesota Medical Association, and American Medical Association Minnesota Defense Lawyers Association, Amicus Curiae., 2005 WL 4662970, *4662970+ (Appellate Brief) (Minn.App. Dec 15, 2005) Reply Brief of Appellant St. Francis Medical Center (NO. A05-1698, A05-1701) HN: 16 (N.E.2d)
224 Mary and Michael LARSON, Respondents, v. James Preston WASEMILLER, M.D., Appellant (A05-1698), Defendant (A05-1701), Paul Scot Wasemiller, M.D. and Dakota Clinic, Ltd., Defendants (A05-1698), St. Francis Medical Center, Appellant (A 05-1701)., 2005 WL 4662968, *4662968+ (Appellate Brief) (Minn.App. Dec 02, 2005) Brief of Respondents Mary and Michael Larson (NO. A05-1698, A05-1701) 225 Mary LARSON and Michael Larson, Respondents, v. James Preston WASEMILLER, M.D., Appellant (A05-1698), Defendant (A05-1701), Paul Scot Wasemiller, M.D. and Dakota Clinic, Ltd, Defendants (A05-1698), St. Francis Medical Center, Appellant (A05-1701)., 2005 WL 4662967, *4662967+ (Appellate Brief) (Minn.App. Nov 09, 2005) Brief of Amicus Curiae Minnesota Defense Lawyers Association (NO. A05-1698, A05-1701) 226 Mary NISKANEN, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estae of Paul J. Niskanen, Appellee, v. GLANT EAGLE, INC., Appellant., 2008 WL 4659996, *4659996+ (Appellate Brief) (Ohio Oct 08, 2008) Amicus Curiae Brief of the Ohio Council of Retail Merchants and the Ohio Rocers Association Urging Reversal On Behalf of Appellant Giant Eagle, Inc. (NO. 2008-0895) HN: 1 (N.E.2d) 227 ESTATE OF DONALD STEVIC, by Betty A. Stevic, Executrix, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BIOMEDICAL APPLICATION OF OHIO, INC., d/b/a Fmc Richland County Dialysis Services, et al., Defendants-Appellants., 2008 WL 4566579, *4566579+ (Appellate Brief) (Ohio Oct 03, 2008) Reply Brief of Appellant Bio-medical Applications of Ohio, Inc. D/b/a Fmc Dialysis Services of Richland County (NO. 08-0392) HN: 4 (N.E.2d) 228 Loretta SCHELLING, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. COMMUNITY HOSPITALS OF WILLIAMS COUNTY, Defendant/Appellant., 2008 WL 2623529, *2623529+ (Appellate Brief) (Ohio Jun 24, 2008) Reply Brief of Appellant Community Hospitals of Williams County (NO. 2007-2202) HN: 7 (N.E.2d) 229 Loretta SCHELLING, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. COMMUNITY HOSPITALS OF WILLIAMS COUNTY, Defendant/Appellant., 2008 WL 2447309, *2447309+ (Appellate Brief) (Ohio Jun 04, 2008) Merit Brief of Appellee Loretta Schelling (NO. 2007-2202) " HN: 6,7,13 (N.E.2d) 230 Loretta SCHELLING, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. COMMUNITY HOSPITALS OF WILLIAMS COUNTY, Defendant/Appellant., 2008 WL 2119850, *2119850+ (Appellate Brief) (Ohio May 06, 2008) Merit Brief of Appellant Community Hospitals of Williams County (NO. 2007-2202) " HN: 5,7,15 (N.E.2d) 231 Loretta SCHELLING, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. COMMUNITY HOSPITALS OF WILLIAMS COUNTY, Defendant-Appellant., 2008 WL 2119851, *2119851+ (Appellate Brief) (Ohio May 06, 2008) Brief of Amici Curiae, the Ohio Hospital Association and the Ohio Osteopathic Hospital Association in Support of Appellant Community Hospitals of Williams County (NO. 07-2202) " HN: 5,7,15 (N.E.2d) 232 Rev. Iyabo NADRA, Appellee, v. Susan MBAH and Mindy Grote, Appellants., 2007 WL 2701049, *2701049+ (Appellate Brief) (Ohio 2007) Merit Brief of Appellants Susan Mbah and Mindy Grote (NO. 07-525) 233 Rev. Iyabo NADRA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Susan MBAH and Mindy Grote, Defendants-Appellants., 2007 WL 2701050, *2701050+ (Appellate Brief) (Ohio 2007) Merit Brief of Amicus Curiae State of Ohio in Support of Defendants-Appellants Susan Mbah and Mindy Grote
(NO. 2007-0525) "
HN: 8 (N.E.2d)
234 John DOE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Archdiocese of CINCINNATI, et al., Defendants-Appellants., 2005 WL 2979583, *2979583+ (Appellate Brief) (Ohio Oct 05, 2005) Merit Brief of Appellee (NO. 2005-0702, 20050702) " HN: 11,13,15 (N.E.2d) 235 John DOE, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. ARCHDIOCESE OF CINCINNATI, et al. Defendant/Appellants., 2005 WL 2979585, *2979585+ (Appellate Brief) (Ohio Oct 04, 2005) Merit Brief of Amici Curiae Leadership Council on Child Abuse & Interpersonal Violence and Teresa Bombrys in Support of Plaintiff-Appellee John Doe (NO. 2005-0702) HN: 10,14 (N.E.2d) 236 John DOE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ARCHDIOCESE OF CINCINNATI, et al., Defendants-Appellants., 2005 WL 6233709, *6233709+ (Appellate Brief) (Ohio Oct 2005) Merit Brief of Appellee (NO. 2005-0734, 2005-0702) " HN: 11,13,15 (N.E.2d) 237 John DOE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ARCHDIOCESE OF CINCINNATI. et al., Defendants-Appellants., 2005 WL 2570273, *2570273+ (Appellate Brief) (Ohio Sep 06, 2005) Merit Brief of Appellants the Archdiocese of Cincinnati and Archbishop Daniel Pilarczyk (NO. 2005-0702, 2005-0734) " HN: 10,13,15 (N.E.2d) 238 Carolyn CIGANIK, Petitioner/Appellant, v. Duane KALEY, et al, Respondent/Appellee., 2004 WL 5286217, *5286217+ (Appellate Brief) (Ohio Dec 30, 2004) Petitioner's Jurisdictional Brief (NO. 04-2174) " HN: 1,15 (N.E.2d) 239 Susan R. CRYSTAL, Appellee, v. James M. WILSMAN, Appellant., 2003 WL 23644635, *23644635 (Appellate Brief) (Ohio May 12, 2003) Memorandum in Support of Jurisdiction (NO. 2003-0843) 240 David and Theresa NORGARD, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BRUSH WELLMAN, INC., DefendantAppellee., 2001 WL 34555808, *34555808+ (Appellate Brief) (Ohio Sep 24, 2001) Reply Brief of Appellants David and Theresa Norgard (NO. 2001-0063) " HN: 13 (N.E.2d) 241 David and Theresa NORGARD, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BRUSH WELLMAN INC., DefendantAppellee., 2001 WL 34555803, *34555803+ (Appellate Brief) (Ohio Sep 04, 2001) Appellee Brush Wellman's Merit Brief (NO. 2001-0063) HN: 1,11,13 (N.E.2d) 242 David and Theresa NORGARD Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BRUSH WELLMAN INC., DefendantAppellee., 2001 WL 34555807, *34555807+ (Appellate Brief) (Ohio Jul 16, 2001) Brief of Amicus Curiae Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers in Support of Appellants David and Theresa Norgard (NO. 2001-0063) " HN: 13,14 (N.E.2d) 243 David and Theresa NORGARD, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BRUSH WELLMAN, INC., DefendantAppellee., 2001 WL 34555811, *34555811+ (Appellate Brief) (Ohio Jul 16, 2001) Merit Brief of Appellants David and Theresa Norgard (NO. 2001-0063) " HN: 10 (N.E.2d) 244 Aaron C. BLODGETT, et al., Appellants, v. James L. KAHN, M.D., et al., and Lima Memorial Hospital, Appellee., 1996 WL 33579493, *33579493+ (Appellate Brief) (Ohio Oct 23, 1996) Brief of Amicus Curiae Ohio Hospital Association in Support of Defendant-Appellee, Lima Memorial Hospital (NO. 96-757) HN: 5 (N.E.2d) 245 Janet PHILLIPS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James C. BURT, M.D., Defendant, and St. Elizabeth Medical Center, Defendant-Appellant., 1996 WL 33657389, *33657389+ (Appellate Brief) (Ohio Apr 09, 1996) Reply Brief of Appellant, St. Elizabeth Medical Center (NO. 95-1522) "
HN: 5,7,13 (N.E.2d) 246 Janet PHILLIPS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James C. BURT, M.D., Defendant, St. Elizabeth Medical Center, Defendant-Appellant., 1996 WL 33657388, *33657388+ (Appellate Brief) (Ohio Mar 20, 1996) Merit Brief of Plaintiff-Appellee (NO. 95-1522) " HN: 13,14,15 (N.E.2d) 247 Janet PHILLIPS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James C. BURT, M.D., Defendant, and, St. Elizabeth Medical Center, Defendant-Appellant., 1996 WL 33657386, *33657386+ (Appellate Brief) (Ohio Feb 12, 1996) Merit Brief of Appellant, St. Elizabeth Medical Center (NO. 95-1522) " HN: 13,15,16 (N.E.2d) 248 Janet PHILLIPS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James C. BURT, M.D., Defendant, St. Elizabeth Medical Center, Defendant-Appellant., 1996 WL 33657387, *33657387+ (Appellate Brief) (Ohio Feb 12, 1996) Brief of Amici Curiae Ohio Hospital Association and Ohio State Medical Association in Support of Defendant-Appellant St. Elizabeth Medical Center (NO. 95-1522) HN: 11,13,14 (N.E.2d) 249 STATE OF OHIO, ex rel. Terrance Greatorex Appellee, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO, et al., Appellants., 1995 WL 17200104, *17200104+ (Appellate Brief) (Ohio Jun 21, 1995) Reply Brief of Appellants, Industrial Commission of Ohio and Administrator, Bureau of Workers' Compensation (NO. 95-542) 250 State of Ohio Ex. Rel. Jocelyn L. JOHNSON, Appellant, v. CLEVELAND HEIGHTS/UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS SCHOOL DISTRICT, Cleveland Heights Board of Education Appellee., 1995 WL 17200080, *17200080+ (Appellate Brief) (Ohio May 10, 1995) Merit Brief of Appellee Cleveland Heights/University Heights School District Board of Education (NO. 95-314) 251 NCR CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES MINERAL PRODUCTS COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee., 1994 WL 16177965, *16177965+ (Appellate Brief) (Ohio Jun 08, 1994) Reply Brief of Appellant NCR Corporation (NO. 93-2411, 93-2515) HN: 1 (N.E.2d) 252 NCR CORPORATION, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. UNITED STATES MINERAL PRODUCTS COMPANY, Defendant/Appellee., 1994 WL 16177963, *16177963+ (Appellate Brief) (Ohio May 19, 1994) Defendant / Appellee's Brief (NO. 93-2411, 93-2515) " HN: 14 (N.E.2d) 253 NCR CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES MINERAL PRODUCTS COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee., 1994 WL 16177960, *16177960+ (Appellate Brief) (Ohio Mar 21, 1994) Merit Brief of Appellant NCR Corporation (NO. 93-2411, 93-2515) HN: 1,11,15 (N.E.2d) 254 Erasmia PETRATOS, Administratrix, Plaintiff, v. Dr. Aristotle MARKAKIS, et al., Defendants., 1994 WL 16180410, *16180410+ (Appellate Brief) (Ohio Jan 21, 1994) Brief of Amicus Curiae the Ohio State Medical Association (NO. 93-966) HN: 6 (N.E.2d) 255 Barbara ROME, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. FLOWER MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, et al., Defendants-Appellants, Harold EAGER, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. ST. VINCENT MEDICAL CENTER, et al., Defendants-Appellants., 1994 WL 16515279, *16515279+ (Appellate Brief) (Ohio Jan 07, 1994) Reply Brief of Defendants-Appellants Flower Memorial Hospital and St. Vincent Medical Center (NO. 931517) HN: 3,4,5 (N.E.2d) 256 Barbara ROME, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. FLOWER MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, et al., Defendants-Appellants. Harold Eager, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. St. Vincent Medical Center, et
al., Defendants-Appellants., 1993 WL 13141304, *13141304+ (Appellate Brief) (Ohio Dec 02, 1993) Brief of Plaintiffs-Appellees, Harold Eager and Gladys Eager (NO. 93-1517) " HN: 4,5,7 (N.E.2d) 257 NCR CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES MINERAL PRODUCTS COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee., 1993 WL 13633440, *13633440+ (Appellate Brief) (Ohio Nov 29, 1993) Memorandum in Support of Jurisdiction (NO. 93-2411) HN: 1,15 (N.E.2d) 258 Barbara ROME, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. FLOWER MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, et al., Defendants-Appellants, Harold EAGER, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. ST. VINCENT MEDICAL CENTER, et al., Defendants-Appellants., 1993 WL 13633429, *13633429+ (Appellate Brief) (Ohio Nov 22, 1993) Brief of Plaintiffs-Appellees Barbara Rome (NO. 931517) " HN: 4,5 (N.E.2d) 259 Barbara ROME, et al., plaintiffs-Appellees, v. FLOWER MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, et al., Defendants-Appellants, Harold EAGER, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. ST. VINCENT MEDICAL CENTER, et al., Defendants-Appellants., 1993 WL 13633428, *13633428+ (Appellate Brief) (Ohio Oct 22, 1993) Brief of Defendants-Appellants Flower Memorial Hospital and St. Vincent Medical Center (NO. 931517) " HN: 4,5 (N.E.2d) 260 Kenneth LIDDELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SCA SERVICES OF OHIO, INC., Defendant-Appellee., 1993 WL 13140831, *13140831+ (Appellate Brief) (Ohio Oct 06, 1993) Defendant-Appellee's Brief Opposing Appeal (NO. 93-294) HN: 9 (N.E.2d) 261 Kenneth LIDDELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SCA SERVICES OF OHIO, Defendant-Appellee., 1993 WL 13140830, *13140830+ (Appellate Brief) (Ohio Aug 30, 1993) Amicus Brief of Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers (NO. 93-294) HN: 12,14 (N.E.2d) 262 Charles H. BAXLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HARLEY-DAVIDSON MOTOR COMPANY GROUP, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellees., 2007 WL 5516450, *5516450+ (Appellate Brief) (Ohio App. 1 Dist. Feb 21, 2007) Brief of Defendant-Appellee Harley-Davidson Motor Company Group, Inc. (NO. C-060917) 263 Charles H. BAXLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HARLEY-DAVIDSON MOTOR COMPANY GROUP, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellees., 2007 WL 5516449, *5516449+ (Appellate Brief) (Ohio App. 1 Dist. Jan 17, 2007) Brief of Plaintiff-Appellant Charles H. Baxley (NO. C060917) 264 Harry A. SCHULTE and Barbara Schulte, Appellants, v. ARCHDIOCESE OF CINCINNATI, Appellee., 2004 WL 5536475, *5536475+ (Appellate Brief) (Ohio App. 1 Dist. Apr 02, 2004) Brief of Appellee Archdiocese of Cincinnati (NO. C-030827) " HN: 7,13,15 (N.E.2d) 265 HARRY A. and Barbara A. Schulte, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ARCHDIOCESE OF CINCINNATI, Defendant-Appellee., 2004 WL 5536474, *5536474+ (Appellate Brief) (Ohio App. 1 Dist. Mar 03, 2004) Brief of Appellants Harry A. Schulte and Barbara A. Schulte (NO. C-030827) HN: 11 (N.E.2d) 266 John B. DOE, et al., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF CLEVELAND, Defendant-Appellee., 2007 WL 6139244, *6139244 (Appellate Brief) (Ohio App. 8 Dist. Dec 20, 2007) Reply Brief of Plaintiff-Appellant (NO. 90528) 267 ACCELERATED SYSTEMS INTEGRATION, INC., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. HAUSSER
& TAYLOR, LLP, et al., Defendants-Appellees., 2006 WL 4958566, *4958566 (Appellate Brief) (Ohio App. 8 Dist. Sep 07, 2006) Appellants-Plaintiffs' Reply Brief (NO. 88207) 268 Janet L. HERMAN, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. Dr. Richard KRATCHE, M.D., CLEVELAND CLINIC HEALTH SYSTEMS, Appellees/Cross-Appellants., 2006 WL 4070193, *4070193 (Appellate Brief) (Ohio App. 8 Dist. Jan 23, 2006) Reply Brief of Appellees/Cross-Appellants Dr. Richard Kratche, M.D. and Cleveland Clinic Health Systems (NO. CV-04-538326) 269 Janet L. HERMAN, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. Dr. Richard KRATCHE, M.D., CLEVELAND CLINIC HEALTH SYSTEMS, Appellees/Cross-Appellants., 2006 WL 4070192, *4070192+ (Appellate Brief) (Ohio App. 8 Dist. Jan 12, 2006) Combined Reply and Response Brief of Appellant/Cross-Appellee (NO. CA0586697) HN: 5 (N.E.2d) 270 Janet L. HERMAN, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. DR. Richard KRATCHE, M.D., CLEVELAND CLINIC HEALTH SYSTEM, Appellees/Cross-Appellants., 2005 WL 5207400, *5207400 (Appellate Brief) (Ohio App. 8 Dist. Dec 08, 2005) Combined Brief of Appellees/ Cross-Appellants Dr. Richard Kratche, M.D. and Cleveland Clinic Health Systems (NO. CA0586697) 271 John DOE, et al, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF CLEVELAND, et al., Defendants-Appellees., 2005 WL 4907994, *4907994+ (Appellate Brief) (Ohio App. 8 Dist. Oct 06, 2005) Reply Brief of Plaintiffs-Appellants (NO. 86419) HN: 12,13,14 (N.E.2d) 272 John DOE, et al, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF CLEVELAND, et al, Defendants-Appellees., 2005 WL 4907993, *4907993+ (Appellate Brief) (Ohio App. 8 Dist. Sep 26, 2005) Brief of Defendants-Appellees Catholic Diocese of Cleveland and Parmadale (NO. 86419) HN: 13 (N.E.2d) 273 John DOE, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF CLEVELAND, et al., Defendants-Appellees., 2005 WL 4907992, *4907992+ (Appellate Brief) (Ohio App. 8 Dist. Aug 31, 2005) Plaintiffs'-Appellants' Brief and Assignment of Errors (NO. 86419) " HN: 11,13,15 (N.E.2d) 274 Christine A. BRZOZOWSKI, Executrix of the Estate of Lewis Richter, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC., et al., Defendant-Appellant., 2004 WL 3750914, *3750914+ (Appellate Brief) (Ohio App. 8 Dist. Sep 28, 2004) Brief of Appellee (NO. CA-04-085097) HN: 16,17 (N.E.2d) 275 Christine A. BRZOZOWSKI, Executrix of the Estate of Lewis Richter, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellants., 2004 WL 3750913, *3750913+ (Appellate Brief) (Ohio App. 8 Dist. Sep 14, 2004) Brief of Appellant (NO. CA-04-085097) HN: 16 (N.E.2d) 276 Jane B. DOE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF CLEVELAND, et al., Defendants-Appellees., 2003 WL 24284747, *24284747+ (Appellate Brief) (Ohio App. 8 Dist. Jul 15, 2003) Reply Brief of Plaintiff-Appellant (NO. 82542) HN: 13 (N.E.2d) 277 Jane B. DOE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF CLEVELAND, et al., Defendants-Appellees., 2003 WL 24284746, *24284746+ (Appellate Brief) (Ohio App. 8 Dist. Jul 07, 2003) Brief of Defendants-Appellees, Catholic Diocese of Cleveland and St. Joseph Church (NO. 82542) HN: 10 (N.E.2d) 278 Kevin L. TRANGLE, M.D., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Cesar ROJAS, M.D., et al., Defendants-Appellants., 2002 WL 32997687, *32997687+ (Appellate Brief) (Ohio App. 8 Dist. Sep 17,
2002) Reply Brief of Appellant Lutheran Hospital (NO. 81190) 279 Kevin L. TRANGLE, M.D., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Cesar ROJAS, M.D., et al., Defendants-Appellants., 2002 WL 32997686, *32997686+ (Appellate Brief) (Ohio App. 8 Dist. Aug 21, 2002) Consolidated Brief of Plaintiffs-Appellees Kevin L. Trangle, et al. (NO. 81190) " HN: 6 (N.E.2d) 280 Jocelyn L. JOHNSON, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Floryne Johnson, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS OF CLEVELAND, Defendant/Appellant., 2002 WL 32999107, *32999107+ (Appellate Brief) (Ohio App. 8 Dist. Aug 16, 2002) Response Brief of Plaintiff/Appellee Jocelyn Johnson (NO. 081415) " HN: 16 (N.E.2d) 281 Kevin L. TRANGLE, M.D., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Cesar ROJAS, M.D., et al., DefendantAppellants., 2002 WL 32997685, *32997685+ (Appellate Brief) (Ohio App. 8 Dist. Jul 29, 2002) Brief of Defendants-Appellants Cesar Rojas, M.D. and Kim, Collis & Associates (NO. 81190) HN: 16,17 (N.E.2d) 282 Jocelyn L. JOHNSON, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Floryne Johnson, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS OF CLEVELAND, Defendant/Appellant., 2001 WL 34895590, *34895590+ (Appellate Brief) (Ohio App. 8 Dist. Dec 11, 2001) Response Brief of Plaintiff/Appellee Jocelyn Johnson (NO. 80117) " HN: 16 (N.E.2d) 283 Azzam N. AHMED, M.D., Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant, v. UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellants., 2001 WL 34897051, *34897051+ (Appellate Brief) (Ohio App. 8 Dist. Nov 26, 2001) Appellant UHHS Geauga Regional Hospital's Reply in Support of Its Brief and Assignments of Error and Opposition To CrossAppellant's Brief (NO. 79016) HN: 13 (N.E.2d) 284 Azzam N. AHMED, M.D., Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, v. UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellants/Cross-Appellee., 2001 WL 34897049, *34897049+ (Appellate Brief) (Ohio App. 8 Dist. Jul 16, 2001) Brief and Assignments of Error of Appellant UHHS Geauga Regional Hospital (NO. 79016) HN: 6,16 (N.E.2d) 285 Cheryl ABELS, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Walter RUF, M.D., et al., Defendants-Appellants., 2006 WL 5125894, *5125894+ (Appellate Brief) (Ohio App. 9 Dist. Feb 24, 2006) Brief of Appellees Cheryl Abels, Et Al. (NO. CA22959) HN: 6 (N.E.2d) 286 Cheryl ABELS, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Walter RUF, M.D., et al., Defendants-Appellants., 2001 WL 36101089, *36101089+ (Appellate Brief) (Ohio App. 9 Dist. Oct 19, 2001) Brief of Appellees Cheryl Abels, et al. (NO. CV-2003-02-0787) HN: 13,16 (N.E.2d) 287 Jane DOE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MT. CARMEL HEALTH SYSTEMS, et at., Defendant-Appellant., 2005 WL 3791490, *3791490+ (Appellate Brief) (Ohio App. 10 Dist. Jun 01, 2005) Brief of Plainttiff/Appellee Jane Doe (NO. 05APE05-0435) " HN: 6,13,16 (N.E.2d) 288 GARLAND COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, Petitioner, v. Debi ROSE, Respondent., 2003 WL 23195340, *23195340+ (Appellate Brief) (Tex. Dec 02, 2003) Brief of Amici Curiae, Dolores Romero, Individually, Dolores Romero on Behalf of Incapacitated Plaintiff, Ricardo Romero, Dolores Romero as Next Friend of Ricardo Romero, Jr., A Minor, Jennifer ... (NO. 02-0902) HN: 5,7,14 (N.E.2d) 289 GARLAND COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, Petitioner, v. Debi ROSE, Respondent., 2003 WL 22327000, *22327000+ (Appellate Brief) (Tex. May 12, 2003) Reply Brief of Petitioner %ADGarland Community Hospital%BD (NO. 02-0902) " HN: 5,7,11 (N.E.2d)
290 GARLAND COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, Petitioner, v. Debi ROSE, Respondent., 2003 WL 23195338, *23195338+ (Appellate Brief) (Tex. Apr 28, 2003) Brief of Respondent Debi Rose (NO. 02-0902) HN: 5,6,7 (N.E.2d) 291 Carolyn STOTTLEMYER, Appellant, v. John W. GHRAMM, M.D. and Winchester Medical Center, Inc., Appellees., 2003 WL 24059157, *24059157+ (Appellate Brief) (Va. Dec 09, 2003) Brief Amicus Curiae in Support of Appellant (NO. 031613) 292 Carolyn STOTTLEMYER, Appellant, v. John W. GHRAMM, M.D. and Winchester Medical Center, Inc., Appellees., 2003 WL 24301577, *24301577+ (Appellate Brief) (Va. Dec 09, 2003) Brief Amicus Curiae in Support of Appellant (NO. 031613) 293 Karl B. PULLIAM, Executor of the Estate of Elnora R. Pulliam, Appellant, v. COASTAL EMERGENCY SERVICES OF RICHMOND, INC. and Thomas Anthony Digiovanna, Appellees., 1998 WL 34375467, *34375467+ (Appellate Brief) (Va. Jul 09, 1998) Brief of Appellant (NO. 980659) HN: 5,7 (N.E.2d) 294 John DOE 67A, James Ahler, Plaintiffs-Appellants, John DOE 67F, Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioner, Gregory HUDON, and John Doe 67B, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ARCHDIOCESE OF MILWAUKEE, St. John the Evangelist Church, Alias Insurance Company #1, and Alias Insurance Company #2, Defendants-Respondents., 2004 WL 5482231, *5482231+ (Appellate Brief) (Wis. Dec 17, 2004) Petitioner's Brief and Appendix (NO. 03-1417) HN: 13 (N.E.2d) 295 JOHN DOE 67C, Jane Doe 67E, Jonathan Gillespie, John Doe 67D and Jim Gillespie, PlaintiffsAppellants, v. ARCHDIOCESE OF MILWAUKEE, St. John the Evangelist Church, Alias Insurance Company #1, and Alias Insurance Company #2, Defendants-Respondents; John Doe 67A, James Ahler, John Doe 67F, Gregory Hudon, and John Doe 67B, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Archdiocese of Milwaukee, St. John the Evangelist Church, Alias Insurance Company #1, and Alias Insurance Company #2,, 2003 WL 24112300, *24112300+ (Appellate Brief) (Wis.App. I Dist. Aug 04, 2003) Appellants' Brief and Appendix (NO. 03-1416, 03-1417) HN: 13,14,15 (N.E.2d) Trial Court Documents (U.S.A.) Trial Pleadings 296 Christine SMITH, Administratrix, Plaintiff, v. MANOR CARE OF CANTON, INC., et al., Defendants., 2004 WL 5652790, *5652790+ (Trial Pleading) (Ohio Com.Pl. 2004) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Testimony from Stephanie Boykins with Memorandum in Support (NO. 04CV02633) " HN: 16,17 (N.E.2d) 297 Jane B. DOE. c/o, Plaintiff, v. CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF CLEVELAND, St. Joseph Church, Defendants., 2002 WL 32956670, *32956670+ (Trial Pleading) (Ohio Com.Pl. Nov 12, 2002) Complaint (NO. CV02486158) Trial Motions, Memoranda and Affidavits 298 Alice ROBERTS, Kevin Hales, Christy Millsap and Tim Millsap, Individually and on behalf of all other Natural Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. BJC Health SYSTEM, et al., Defend-
ants., 2004 WL 2886713, *2886713 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (E.D.Mo. Nov 18, 2004) Memorandum of Law of Defendant BJC Health System in Support of Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion to Sever (NO. 404-CV-01556JCH) 299 Alice ROBERTS and Kevin Hales, Plaintiffs, v. BJC HEALTH SYSTEM, et al., Defendants., 2004 WL 1981636, *1981636 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (E.D.Mo. Aug 12, 2004) Memorandum of Law of Defendant BJC Health System in Support of Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion to Sever (NO. 404CV1002JCH) 300 TWEE JONGE GEZELLEN (PTY) LTD., Plaintiff, v. OWENS-ILLINOIS, et al., Defendants., 2006 WL 1476816, *1476816+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (N.D.Ohio Apr 17, 2006) Memorandum in Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (NO. 304CV7349) 301 TWEE JONGE GEZELLEN (PTY) LTD., Plaintiff, v. OWENS-ILLINOIS, et al., Defendants., 2006 WL 1476810, *1476810+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (N.D.Ohio Apr 03, 2006) Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (NO. 304CV7349) 302 Carol METZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNIZAN BANK, et al., Defendants., 2005 WL 6181658, *6181658 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (N.D.Ohio Oct 11, 2005) Plaintiffs' Supplemental Brief Regarding Issue Raised By the Court and the Parties At the September 24, 2005 Hearing (NO. 505CV01510) 303 Susan FRY, Plaintiff, v. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, Defendant., 1995 WL 17815576, *17815576 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (N.D.Ohio 1995) Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendant Eli Lilly and Company against Susan Fry (NO. 595CV1615) 304 OWNER-OPERATOR INDEPENDENT DRIVERS ASSOCIATION, Carl Harp and Michael Wiese, as Representatives of the Class and the Certified Class of Owner-Operators, Case No. C2-97-750 United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Plaintiffs, v. Comerica BANK, Defendant., 2007 WL 4739294, *4739294 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (S.D.Ohio May 16, 2007) Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint (NO. 205-CV-0056) 305 Gary NEFF, Plaintiff, v. STANDARD FEDERAL BANK, c/o ABN Amro Mortgage Group Inc., et al., Defendants., 2007 WL 978646, *978646+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (S.D.Ohio Feb 26, 2007) Defendant Freddie Mac's Reply in Support of its Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint (NO. 2-06CV856) 306 ESTATE OF DEBBIE MORGAN, by Elaine Joyner as personal representative, Elaine Joyner, Kenneth Baines by Elaine Joyner as limited guardian, Larry Glover, Kim Hazel, Renee Joyner and Willie Joyner, Plaintiff, v. PIERCE COUNTY; Pierce County Regional Support Network; and Pierce County Regional Support Network d/b/a Puget Sound Behavioral Health, and Jane and John does 1-9, Defendants., 2003 WL 23959025, *23959025 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (W.D.Wash. Oct 14, 2003) Plaintiffs Response to Defendants' Motion for Protective Order Regarding Nonprivileged Investigatory Documents and Rule 30(B)(6) Depositions (NO. C03-5029RJB) 307 ESTATE OF DEBBIE MORGAN, by Elaine Joyner as personal representative, Elaine Joyner, Kenneth Baines by Elaine Joyner as limited guardian, Larry Glover, Kim Hazel, Renee Joyner
and Willie Joyner Plaintiff, v. PIERCE COUNTY; Pierce County Regional Support Network; and Pierce County Regional Support Network d/b/a Puget Sound Behavioral Health, and Jane and John does 1-9, Defendants., 2003 WL 23959043, *23959043 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (W.D.Wash. Oct 14, 2003) Plaintiffs Response to Defendants' Motion for Protective Order Regarding Nonprivileged Investigatory Documents and Rule 30(B) (6) Depositions (NO. C03-5029RJB) 308 Daniel Alan DAY, and Nicole Leigh Day, individually and on behalf of their children Gabriel Alexander Day, and Elijah Patrick Day, Plaintiffs, v. Dr. Michael ARNZ, Dubuque Podiatry, P.C., and the Finley Hospital, Defendants., 2007 WL 5362542, *5362542+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Iowa Dist. Oct 30, 2007) Plaintiffs' Brief in Support of Resistance to Motion for Summary Judgment (NO. 01311LACV054520) 309 Daniel Alan DAY, and Nicole Leigh Day, individually and on behalf of their children Gabriel Alexander Day, and Elijah Patrick Day, Plaintiffs, v. Dr. Michael ARNZ, Dubuque Podiatry, P.C., and The Finley Hospital, Defendants., 2007 WL 5765833, *5765833+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Iowa Dist. Oct 30, 2007) Plaintiffs' Brief in Support of Resistance to Motion for Summary Judgment (NO. 01311LACV054520) 310 Cynthia HERMAN-MCCRARY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND MEDICAL SYSTEM, et al., Defendants., 2004 WL 4055990, *4055990 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Md.Cir.Ct. Jun 18, 2004) Defendant University of Maryland Medical System's Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Its Motion to Dismiss Count II (NO. 24-C-04-002686) 311 Mario ORNELAS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Walter C. BOARDWINE, D.O., et al., Defendants., 2003 WL 25569534, *25569534 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Mo.Cir. Oct 31, 2003) Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion of Defendant Mineral Area Regional Medical Center to Sever and/or Bifurcate for Trial (NO. 01CC-003330(C)) 312 Timothy SCHRUM and Myrna Lynn Schrum, Plaintiffs, v. MINERAL AREA ORTHOPEDICS, Parkland Health Center, and Sulzer Spine-tech Surgical, Inc., Defendants., 2002 WL 34231358, *34231358 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Mo.Cir. Nov 01, 2002) Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion of Defendant Parkland Health Center to Dismiss (NO. 01CC-003589) 313 IVA BURNETT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. KETTERING MEDICAL CENTER NETWORK, et al., Defendants., 2008 WL 4971157, *4971157 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Ohio Com.Pl. Sep 30, 2008) Memorandum of Defendants Kettering Medical Center Network and Sycamore Hospital in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production of Documents (NO. 06-CV5742) 314 ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Plaintiff, v. THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO., et al., Defendants., 2008 WL 5369477, *5369477+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Ohio Com.Pl. Jan 04, 2008) Defendant Ohio Edison Company's Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings (NO. CV2007-03-2447) 315 George GIUSTI, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Jason Rinehart, Plaintiff, v. AKRON GENERAL MEDICAL CENTER, et al., Defendants., 2007 WL 5878745, *5878745 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Ohio Com.Pl. Aug 21, 2007) Defendant Akron General Medical Center's Brief in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (NO. CV2006053026)
316 Cheryl ABELS, Et Al., Plaintiffs, v. SUMMA HEALTH SYSTEM, Defendants., 2007 WL 4752771, *4752771 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Ohio Com.Pl. Jul 09, 2007) Defendant's Brief In Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel (NO. CV2003020787) 317 Eugenia FLOYD, Administratrix on behalf of the estate of Mary Lou. Lomax (deceased) and on behalf of the next of kin of Mary L. Lomax (deceased), Plaintiffs, v. REGAL CARE RESIDENCES, INC. dba The Residence at Park View, et al, Defendants., 2007 WL 5860892, *5860892 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Ohio Com.Pl. Jan 16, 2007) Plaintiff's Preliminary Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (NO. A0609474) 318 Thomas R. YEARMS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Steve CLEMONS D/B/A Clemons Construction Co., et al., Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiff, v. Carolina Holdings Operation, et al., Third-Party Defendants., 2006 WL 4628326, *4628326 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Ohio Com.Pl. Sep 29, 2006) Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants Yankee Trace Development's Motion for Summary Judgment (NO. 02-7633) 319 Charles H. BAXLEY, Plaintiff, v. HARLEY-DAVIDSON MOTOR COMPANY, INC., et al., Defendants., 2006 WL 6054073, *6054073 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Ohio Com.Pl. Jul 12, 2006) Reply of Defendant Harley-Davidson Motor Company Group Inc. in Support of its Motion to Dismiss (NO. A0604502) 320 Maria CEPEDA, et. al., Plaintiffs, v. LUTHERAN HOSPITAL, et. al., Defendants., 2006 WL 6136324, *6136324 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Ohio Com.Pl. Jun 30, 2006) Motion in Opposition to Hospital's Motion for Defendant, lutheran Summary Judgment in Part (NO. CV05566589) 321 Charles H. BAXLEY, Plaintiff, v. HARLEY-DAVIDSON MOTOR COMPANY, INC., et al., Defendants., 2006 WL 6054075, *6054075 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Ohio Com.Pl. Jun 22, 2006) Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant Harley-Davidson's Motion to Dismiss (NO. A0604502) 322 Todd GAVRILOFF, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF KENT, OHIO, Defendant., 2006 WL 6209064, *6209064 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Ohio Com.Pl. Jun 12, 2006) Motion in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (NO. 2004CV1270) 323 Dale RAMMINGER, Plaintiff, v. ARCHDIOCESE OF CINCINNATI, et al., Defendants., 2006 WL 6054041, *6054041+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Ohio Com.Pl. Mar 17, 2006) Defendants Archdiocese of Cincinnati and Archbishop Daniel Pilarczyk's Motion for Summary Judgment (NO. A0600078) 324 Anne M. FINLEY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FIRST REALTY PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC., et al., Defendants., 2005 WL 5950801, *5950801 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Ohio Com.Pl. Nov 29, 2005) Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants', First Realty Property Management, Ltd., and Sam's Investment, Inc's., Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Counts One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, ... (NO. CV2003031486) 325 HANNAH D'AMORE, ETC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. Michael S. CARDWELL, M.D., Defendant., 2005 WL 4799428, *4799428 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Ohio Com.Pl. Nov 17, 2005) Motion of Defendant Michael S. Cardwell, M.D. for Partial Summary Judgment (NO. CI-2004-5972) 326 Christine SMITH, Administratrix of the Estate of Tommie L. Mathis, Plaintiff, v. MANOR CARE OF CANTON, INC., et al., Defendants., 2005 WL 6233480, *6233480 (Trial Motion,
Memorandum and Affidavit) (Ohio Com.Pl. Apr 07, 2005) Motion of Defendants Manor Care of Canton, Inc. and HCR Manor Care Services, Inc. for Protective Order (NO. 2004CV02633) 327 William R. STANTON, Administrator, Plaintiff, v. UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS HEALTH SYSTEM, INC. d/b/a Bedford Medical Center, et al., Defendants., 2004 WL 5606615, *5606615 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Ohio Com.Pl. Oct 05, 2004) Defendant University Hospitals Health System Bedford Medical Center's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (NO. 522351) 328 John BOWDEN, et al, Plaintiffs, v. Alan ANNENBERG, M.D., et al., Defendants., 2004 WL 5630375, *5630375 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Ohio Com.Pl. Apr 23, 2004) Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Defendant, Mercy Hospital Anderson (NO. A0202992) 329 John BOWDEN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Alan ANNENBERG, M.D., et al., Defendants., 2004 WL 5651638, *5651638 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Ohio Com.Pl. Apr 23, 2004) Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Defendant, Mercy Hospital Anderson (NO. A0202992) 330 Ruth HUNTSMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AULTMAN HOSPITAL, et al., Defendants., 2004 WL 3764138, *3764138+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Ohio Com.Pl. Apr 05, 2004) Defendant's Reply Brief Supporting Motion for Reconsideration (NO. 2002CV03227) 331 Leonard L. REITH, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CHATHAM WOODS HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC. et al., Defendants., 2004 WL 4021606, *4021606 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Ohio Com.Pl. Mar 31, 2004) Defendant, McGill Smith Punshon, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment with Affidavit of James H. Watson, P.E. Attached (NO. A0204028) 332 Ruth HUNTSMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AULTMAN HOSPITAL, et al., Defendants., 2004 WL 3764136, *3764136+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Ohio Com.Pl. Mar 16, 2004) Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Bifurcation By Defendant, Aultman Hospital (NO. 2002CV03227) 333 Thomas PHIBBS, et al., Plaintiff, v. CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER OF AKRON, et al., Defendant., 2004 WL 5523385, *5523385 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Ohio Com.Pl. Feb 19, 2004) Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendants Children's Hospital Medical Center of Akron and James Prebis, M.D.'s Brief in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Interrogatories and Motion for Sanctions (NO. 2001031102) 334 Pamela Jone MIDDLETON, Plaintiff, v. Robert A. BAKER, M.D., et al., Defendants., 2004 WL 4996531, *4996531+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Ohio Com.Pl. Jan 29, 2004) Memorandum Contra to Defendant Clermont Mercy Hospital's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (NO. 2001CVA114) 335 Pamela JONES-MIDDLETON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Robert A. BAKER, M.D., et al., Defendants., 2004 WL 4996530, *4996530 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Ohio Com.Pl. Jan 16, 2004) Defendant, Clermont Mercy Hospital's, Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (NO. 2001CVA114) " HN: 7 (N.E.2d) 336 Jane B. DOE, Plaintiff, v. CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF CLEVELAND, et al., Defendants., 2004 WL 3665391, *3665391 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Ohio Com.Pl. Jan 15,
2004) Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss Complaint by Defendants Catholic Diocese of Cleveland and Saint Joseph Church (NO. CV02486158) 337 Christy MILLER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ARCHDIOCESE OF CINCINNATI, et al., Defendants., 2004 WL 5656097, *5656097+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Ohio Com.Pl. Jan 02, 2004) Defendant Archdiocese of Cincinnati's Reply Memorandum in Support of its Motion to Dismiss the Complaint (NO. A0309010) 338 Jane DOE, Plaintiff, v. ARCHDIOCESE OF CINCINNATI, Defendants., 2004 WL 5543221, *5543221+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Ohio Com.Pl. 2004) Defendant Archdiocese of Cincinnati's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint (NO. A049650) HN: 11 (N.E.2d) 339 Nancy A. KELLEY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Walter R. RUF, M.D., et al., Defendants., 2003 WL 25687960, *25687960 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Ohio Com.Pl. Dec 31, 2003) Defendant Summa Health System's Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel (NO. CV2003074403) 340 Christy MILLER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ARCHDIOCESE OF CINCINNATI, et al., Defendants., 2003 WL 25792254, *25792254+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Ohio Com.Pl. Dec 18, 2003) Plaintiffs' Memorandum Contra Motion to Dismiss of Defendants Archdiocese and Pilarczyk (NO. A0309010) 341 Nancy A. KELLEY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Walter R. RUF, M.D., et al., Defendants., 2003 WL 25687959, *25687959+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Ohio Com.Pl. Dec 12, 2003) Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Answers to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production (NO. CV2003074403) 342 Joseph CRAMER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ARCHDIOCESE OF CINCINNATI, et al., Defendants., 2003 WL 25715013, *25715013 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Ohio Com.Pl. Dec 08, 2003) Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant John Berning's Motion to Dismiss; Request for Oral Argument (NO. A0307977) HN: 11 (N.E.2d) 343 Ruth HUNTSMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AULTMAN HOSPITAL, et al., Defendants., 2003 WL 24305836, *24305836+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Ohio Com.Pl. Jun 23, 2003) Motion of Defendant, Aultman Hospital, to Bifurcate (NO. 2002CV03227) 344 Ruth HUNTSMAN, As Administratrix of the Estate of Aurelia Huntsman, Plaintiff, v. AULTMAN HOSPITAL, et al., Defendants., 2003 WL 24305835, *24305835+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Ohio Com.Pl. Apr 10, 2003) Plaintiff's Reply to Aultman Hospital's in Camera Inspection Brief (NO. 2002CV03227) 345 Pamela Jones MIDDLETON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Robert A. BAKER, M.D., et al., Defendants., 2003 WL 25291516, *25291516+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Ohio Com.Pl. Apr 09, 2003) Plaintiff's Combined Memorandum Contra Defendant Mercy Hospital's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents & Defendant's Motion to Dismiss ... (NO. 2001CVA114) 346 Janet ARMSTRONG, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE CHRIST HOSPITAL, et. al., Discovery Defendants., 2003 WL 24171090, *24171090 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Ohio Com.Pl. Mar 24, 2003) Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike, or in the ALTERNATIVl Reply to Defendant Dr. James Masters Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel (NO. A0203636)
347 Jane B. DOE, Plaintiff, v. CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF CLEVELAND, et al., Defendants., 2003 WL 24236318, *24236318+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Ohio Com.Pl. Jan 09, 2003) Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion to Dismiss the Complaint by Defendants Catholic Diocese of Cleveland and St. Joseph Church (NO. 486158) 348 Janet PENNOCK, et al, Plaintiffs, v. ROBINSON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, et al, Defendants., 2003 WL 25693005, *25693005 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Ohio Com.Pl. Jan 02, 2003) Plaintiffs' Response to Robinson Memorial Hospital's Motion for Summary Judgment (NO. CV2002020866) 349 Anne M. FINLEY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FIRST REALTY PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC., et al., Defendants., 2003 WL 25672846, *25672846 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Ohio Com.Pl. 2003) Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant, Realty One, Inc.'s., Motion for Summary Judgment (NO. CV2003031486) 350 Jane B. DOE, Plaintiff, v. CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF CLEVELAND, et al., Defendants., 2002 WL 32956671, *32956671+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Ohio Com.Pl. Dec 27, 2002) Motion to Dismiss the Complaint by Defendants Catholic Diocese of Cleveland and Saint Joseph Church (NO. CV02486158) 351 Ruth HUNTSMAN, As Administratrix of the Estate of Aurelia Huntsman, Plaintiff, v. AULTMAN HOSPITAL, et al., Defendants., 2002 WL 33005370, *33005370+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Ohio Com.Pl. Dec 23, 2002) Plaintiff's Sur-Reply to Aultman Hospital's Reply Memorandum in Support of Its Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings or in the Alternative Motion to File Second Amended Complaint (NO. 2002CV03227) 352 Ruth HUNTSMAN, As Administratrix of the Estate of Aurelia Huntsman, Plaintiff, v. AULTMAN HOSPITAL, et al., Defendants., 2002 WL 33005367, *33005367 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Ohio Com.Pl. Dec 02, 2002) Plaintiff's Reply to Defendant, Aultman Hospital's, Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (NO. 2002CV03227) 353 John ADAMS, Administrator of The Estate of Jesse Kempczenski, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. BARBARA PRICE (a/k/a Barbara Riley, Barbara Braswell), et al., Defendants., 2002 WL 34372210, *34372210 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Ohio Com.Pl. Oct 15, 2002) Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (NO. CV2001084107) 354 Beverly MAYOR, et al., Plaintiff, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al., Defendants., 2002 WL 32974287, *32974287 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Ohio Com.Pl. Jun 26, 2002) Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition to Motions to Dismiss On Statute of Limitations Grounds (NO. 02-462513-CV) 355 Ms. Christina SCHWALLER, Plaintiff, v. UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, INC., et al., Defendants., 2002 WL 32945170, *32945170+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Ohio Com.Pl. Mar 15, 2002) Defendants University Hospital, Inc. and Sean Maguire, M.D.'s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (NO. A9906570) 356 Janet PENNOCK, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ROBINSON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, et al., Defendants., 2002 WL 34379074, *34379074 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Ohio Com.Pl. 2002) Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendant Robinson Memorial Hospital (NO. CV2002020866) 357 Brian Everett LIPP, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Thomas KWYER, M.D., et al., Defendants., 2001 WL 36156172, *36156172+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Ohio Com.Pl. Aug 24,
2001) Defendants', Thomas Kwyer M. D. and the Toledo Clinic, Motion for Summary Judgment (NO. CI00-5285) 358 Geoffrey C. MITCHELL, M.D., Plaintiff, v. MID-OHIO EMERGENCY SERVICES, et al., Defendants., 2001 WL 36174314, *36174314+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Ohio Com.Pl. Feb 02, 2001) Motion for Summary Judgment of Grant/Riverside Methodist Hospitals and Suzanne DeWoody (NO. 00CVH03-2427) 359 Ms. Christina SCHWALLER, Plaintiff, v. Sean MAGUIRE, M.D., et al., Defendants., 2000 WL 34553284, *34553284 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Ohio Com.Pl. Mar 22, 2000) Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment (NO. A9906570) 360 Ms. Christina SCHWALLER, Plaintiff, v. Sean MAGUIRE, M.D., et al., Defendants., 2000 WL 34572938, *34572938 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Ohio Com.Pl. Mar 21, 2000) Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment (NO. A9906570) 361 Ms. Christina SCHWALLER, Plaintiff, v. Sean MAGUIRE, M.D., et al., Defendants., 2000 WL 34553286, *34553286 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Ohio Com.Pl. Jan 10, 2000) Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment (NO. A9906570) 362 Ms. Christina SCHWALLER, Plaintiff, v. Sean MAGUIRE, M.D., et al., Defendants., 2000 WL 34572937, *34572937 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Ohio Com.Pl. Jan 10, 2000) Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment (NO. A9906570) 363 Oscar SIUDA, et al., Plaintiff, v. David G. HOWARD, M.D., et al., Defendants., 1999 WL 33989306, *33989306+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Ohio Com.Pl. Dec 07, 1999) Defendants' Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for Separate Trial (NO. A9802378) 364 Oscar SIUDA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. David G. HOWARD, M.D., et al., Defendants., 1999 WL 33989304, *33989304+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Ohio Com.Pl. Dec 01, 1999) Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Opposition to Motion for Separate Trials (NO. A9802378) 365 Oscar SIUDA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. David G. HOWARD, M.D., et al., Defendants., 1999 WL 33989277, *33989277+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Ohio Com.Pl. Feb 18, 1999) Defendants' Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Consolidate (NO. A9802378) 366 Mark A. GILLILAND, Plaintiff, v. Michael H. WHITWORTH, D.O., Travis Howard, D.O., Jorge A. Gonzalez, M.D., Hillcrest-Riverside, Inc., d/b/a Tulsa Regional Medical Center, an Oklahoma corporation, Defendants., 2008 WL 5665531, *5665531 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Okl.Dist. May 06, 2008) Defendants Hillcrest-Riverside, Inc. D/B/A Tulsa Regional Medical Center's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Brief in Support (NO. CJ2005-5601) 367 Tim KIRK, as Administrator of the Estate of Bobby Ray Kirk, Plaintiff, v. Douglas W. HENSON, M.D.; David A Denning, M.D.; University Physicians and Surgeons, Inc., a West Virginia corporation; and St. Mary's Hospital of Huntington, Inc., a West Virginia corporation d/b/a St.
Mary's Hospital, Defendants., 2004 WL 5225603, *5225603 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (W.Va.Cir.Ct. Mar 2004) Motion for Summary Judgment on Behalf of St. Mary's Hospital of Huntington, Inc. (NO. 01-C-280)

Browning V Burt, 66 Ohio St.3d 544 (Ohio 1993)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Browning V Burt, 66 Ohio St.3d 544 (Ohio 1993)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Westlaw Delivery Summary Report for CROTTY,PATRICK Date/Time of Request: Client Identifier: Database: Citation Text: Lines: Documents:

2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

[4] Health 198H

2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2116, 1993 -Ohio- 178 END OF DOCUMENT

2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

AUTHORIZED FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY

2009 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

AUTHORIZED FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY

2009 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

AUTHORIZED FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY

2009 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

AUTHORIZED FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY

2009 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

AUTHORIZED FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY

2009 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

AUTHORIZED FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY

2009 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

AUTHORIZED FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY

2009 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

AUTHORIZED FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY

2009 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

AUTHORIZED FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY

2009 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

AUTHORIZED FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY

2009 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

AUTHORIZED FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY

2009 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

AUTHORIZED FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY

2009 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

AUTHORIZED FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY

2009 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

AUTHORIZED FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY

2009 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

AUTHORIZED FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY

2009 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

AUTHORIZED FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY

2009 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

AUTHORIZED FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY

2009 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

AUTHORIZED FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY