When suing any government agency or official in Ohio, plaintiffs must overcome the political subdivision immunity conferred by the legislature in R.C. Chapter 2744. Typically, plaintiffs lose at the pleading stages or upon summary judgment as the grant of political subdivision immunity is broad and subject to limited exceptions. The Third and Eighth Districts recently faced political […]
In Ohio, pursuant to R.C. 2305.113(A), the statute of limitations for a medical malpractice action is one year. There is an exception provided in R.C. 2305.113(B), which extends that one-year limitation another six months, if the plaintiff sends all potential defendants a letter advising the defendants, that the plaintif is considering bringing an action upon an identified claim. […]
In what may be the final blow to workplace intentional tort in Ohio, the Ohio Supreme Court, in Hoyle v. DTJ Ents., Inc., recently held that "an insurance provision that excludes coverage for acts committed with the deliberate intent to injure an employee precludes coverage for employer intentional torts, which require a finding that the employer intended to injure the […]
Last week the Eighth District issued an opinion that could have an impact on discovery requests. In Chinnock v. Renaissance Center, a plaintiff acting pro se filed a medical malpractice complaint, against two cosmetic dentistry locations and two individual dentists, claiming that the failure to cap a root canal caused his heart attack. The trial […]
One of the quickest ways to have a court grant summary judgment against the plaintiff in an asbestos exposure case, is the reliance on vague allegations of asbestos exposure with no specific evidence connecting a defendant to the exposure. Sometimes, that may be all that is available. Laurent v. New Orleans City, is one such example. The plaintiff's […]
