Recently, the Tenth District decided Szwarga v. Riverside Methodist Hospital, 2014-Ohio-4943, in which the court held that the plaintiff’s 180-day letter, extending the statute of limitations in a medical malpractice action in Ohio, complied with R.C. 2305.113(B)(1) even though the letter indicated that the plaintiff was not interested in pursuing litigation and only sought a […]
In reviewing the case decision list from around the state there were two decisions worth mentioning from last week and one from the Sixth Circuit; unfortunately mostly examples of what not to do. On Friday, the Tenth District's recent decision providing some well-needed leniency in drafting 180 letters, extending the statute of limitations in medical malpractice actions, will […]
A win is a win, right? Well, when that “win” comes in the form of reducing a million dollar judgment to $250,000 through Ohio's tort reform damage caps structure, when it might have been $175,000, it might not feel that way. In Guiliani v. Shehata, 2014-Ohio-4240, the plaintiff in a failure-to-diagnose type medical malpractice action […]
It may occur rarely, but the implications are immense. Consider the situation of hiring an expert to review a case file. She declines to testify at trial but subsequently gets hired by the opposing counsel as their expert. As disheartening as that prospect seems, there is some support in Ohio to seek disqualification of the […]
In Burkhart v. H.J. Heinz Co., 2014-Ohio-3766, the Ohio Supreme Court interpreted Evid.R. 804(B)(1), which requires a party to demonstrate the former testimony being offered is (1) against a party or that party’s predecessor-in-interest, that had the opportunity to cross-examine the declarant and (2) had a similar motiving in developing the former testimony. The decision […]
