Janet Phillips v. James C. Burt, M.D.
| Decision Date | 14 June 1995 |
| Docket Number | C.A. 14532,95-LW-3426 |
| Parties | JANET PHILLIPS, Plaintiff-Appellee v. JAMES C. BURT, M.D. Defendant and ST. ELIZABETH MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant-Appellant C.A. Case No. 14532. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
MARYLEE GILL SAMBOL of SAMBOL AND ASSOCIATES, 109 North Broadway Avenue, Trotwood, Ohio 45426,. Atty. Reg. #9992126, Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee, Janet Phillips.
K.C GREEN, Atty. Reg. #0005435, DEBORAH R. LYDON, Atty. Reg #0013322 and SARA S. RORER, Atty. Reg. #0041089, 1900 Chemed Center, 255 East Fifth Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Attorney for Defendant-Appellant, St. Elizabeth Medical Center.
Appellant St. Elizabeth Medical Center ("SEMC") appeals from the judgment of the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas granting Appellee Janet Phillips' motion for a new trial.
Phillips' lawsuit stems from surgery performed on her by Dr. James C. Burt in 1981 at SEMC. At the time of the surgery, Dr. Burt was a physician with staff privileges at SEMC. In 1981, Phillips consulted Dr. Burt and explained that she was experiencing heavy periods, spotting between periods, and pain during intercourse. On November 4, 1981, at SEMC, Phillips underwent a total hysterectomy performed by Dr. Burt upon his advice. Phillips contends that she did not consent to any surgical procedure other than a hysterectomy.
In the years following the surgery, Phillips developed a variety of ailments, including vaginal infections, pain and soreness, bladder infections, bowel problems, and extreme difficulty in urinating which required her to catheterize herself. Phillips continued to seek treatment from Burt for these problems for approximately three years after the surgery. Phillips contends that Dr. Burt warned her not to consult a urologist regarding these physical ailments because such an examination could cause her physical harm or even death. Because Dr. Burt was unsuccessful in treating her symptoms, Phillips stopped seeing him in 1984.
In December 1985, Phillips consulted Dr. Michael J. Clark. After examining Phillips, Dr. Clark informed her that, in addition to the hysterectomy, other surgical procedures had been performed on her including clitoral circumcision and vaginal reconstruction. Dr. Clark advised Phillips to consult an attorney regarding her past medical treatment by Dr. Burt. Phillips subsequently underwent corrective surgery by Dr. Bradley Busacco. She continues to suffer from various problems associated with Dr. Burt's treatment.
On April 4, 1986, Phillips filed a complaint in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas. The complaint asserted various claims, including medical negligence and fraud, against Dr. Burt. The complaint further asserted various claims of negligence against SEMC, including a specific claim of negligent credentialing of a physician. Phillips subsequently filed an amended complaint asserting the additional claim of fraudulent concealment against SEMC. SEMC filed timely answers to the complaints, raising several affirmative defenses in its behalf.
The parties conducted extensive discovery over the next five years. Trial of the case was delayed several times for various reasons, including this court's resolution of certain preliminary issues on appeal. Over the next several years, the parties filed numerous motions, including motions for summary judgment, discovery motions, and contempt motions. Specifically, SEMC moved for summary judgment on several occasions on the grounds that the claims against it were barred by the statute of limitations. These motions were overruled by the trial court.
The case finally proceeded to trial against both Dr. Burt and SEMC on May 6, 1991. At trial, Phillips testified on her own behalf and presented testimony from numerous other witnesses including several physicians and other medical personnel. At the close of Phillips' case-in-chief, SEMC moved for a directed verdict on the grounds that Phillips' negligence claims were barred by the statute of limitations, and that Phillips had failed to prove her fraud claims. The trial court overruled the motions. Dr. Burt and SEMC then presented evidence, including testimony from physicians and various hospital personnel. At the close of the defense's case, Phillips moved for a directed verdict in her favor. SEMC also moved for a directed verdict claiming, inter alia, that it was immune from suit. The trial court overruled the motions. Phillips then presented rebuttal evidence. At the close of all evidence, SEMC renewed its motion for directed verdict which was again overruled by the trial court.
The trial court then instructed the jury on the negligence and fraud claims against both defendants. The court further instructed the jury on the applicable statute of limitations to the negligence claims against both Dr. Burt and SEMC. That instruction provided, in part, as follows:
The law of Ohio requires that a legal action for medical negligence must be filed within one year of the date when the injured party became aware or should have become aware of the extent and seriousness of their condition and that such condition was related to a specific medical service previously rendered. The failure of the plaintiff to meet this requirement in this case would bar her, that is, Janet Phillips, from any recovery against the defendants. This, as I told you earlier, is an affirmative defense raised by the defendants, requiring that they prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the plaintiff was or should have been aware should have been made aware [sic] prior to April 4, 1985, of the extent and seriousness of her injury and that it was related to the surgery and care that the plaintiff received from the defendants. To clarify this, a cause of action comes into being and the statute of limitation [sic] starts to run whenever there is an occurrence of a cognizable event which does or should lead the patient to believe that the conditions of which she complains are related to a medical procedure, treatment or diagnosis previously rendered to her and when the cognizable event does or should place the patient on notice of the need to pursue her possible remedies.
Phillips timely objected to this instruction. The trial court overruled Phillips' objection as well as other objections to the instructions raised by the defendants.
The jury was given interrogatories, one of which concerned the statute of limitations on the negligence claims against both defendants. This interrogatory incorporated the above "cognizable event" discovery standard and the one-year statute of limitations found in R.C. 2305.11.(fn1) After deliberating, the jury returned a verdict finding Phillips' negligence claims against both Dr. Burt and SEMC barred by the statute of limitations. The jury further found in favor of SEMC on Phillips' fraudulent concealment claim. However, the jury found in favor of Phillips on her fraud claim against Dr. Burt and awarded her five million dollars in compensatory damages. Judgment was entered on these verdicts on July 1, 1991.
On July 1, 1991, Phillips moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and, in the alternative, a new trial. These motions were supplemented several times as case law concerning issues related to the actions arising from Dr. Burt's medical treatment continued to develop. On March 17, 1994, the trial court issued a decision and order overruling Phillips' motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, but granting her motion for a new trial on her negligent credentialing claims against SEMC. The trial court did not disturb the judgments against Dr. Burt and in favor of SEMC on Phillips' fraud claims.
The trial court's decision to grant a new trial on Phillips' negligent credentialing claims against SEMC was based on the Ohio Supreme Court's holding in Browning v. Burt (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 544, certiorari denied sub nom. St. Elizabeth Med. Ctr. v. Browning (1994), 114 S.Ct. 1054, wherein the Court addressed several issues concerning claims against hospitals for negligent credentialing of physicians. In Browning, the Court held that the two-year statute of limitations set forth in R.C. 2305.10, rather than the one year period contained in R.C. 2305.11, was applicable to negligent credentialing claims against a hospital. Id. at paragraph three of the syllabus. The Court held that the "cognizable event" discovery rule, which is generally applicable to cases of medical malpractice, was inapplicable to negligent credentialing claims. Id. at 560. Instead, the Court held that the period of limitations in such actions begins to run when a patient experiences an "alerting event" such that the patient "knows or should have discovered that he or she was injured as a result of the hospital's negligent credentialing practices." Id. at paragraph four of the syllabus.
In reliance on the law announced in Browning, the trial court found that it had incorrectly instructed the jury on the statute of limitations applicable to the negligent credentialing claim because the instructions given were "based upon incorrect applications of the law." The trial court reasoned that, while the instruction may have been correct as to the other negligence claims, the instruction was erroneous as to the negligent credentialing claim against the hospital and "the jury in this case should have made an independent finding regarding the commencement of the two year negligent credentialing period of limitations." Because the trial court found that the outcome of the case could have been different if the correct statute of limitations and discovery rule had been used, it granted a new trial on the negligent credentialing claim.
SEMC then filed a timely appeal.
To continue reading
Request your trial