 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Richards v. Santini-Diaz8/3/2000
ident related claims; and that Nussbaum initially represented the Richardses under a contingent fee contract.
Santini's lawyer also questioned the Richardses and Mrs. Richards' physicians about whether each knew that both the Rockside and Parma centers were owned by an attorney named Michael Shane. No evidence, however, was presented on Shane's, or anyone's, ownership of these facilities. Nussbaum no longer represented the Richardses and did not testify, nor did Shane. Santini's lawyer disputed whether Richards was referred to Dr. Mars by Nussbaum or by Dr. Paras, and also questioned the consistency and veracity of Richards' testimony on her prior medical history, which included a diagnosis of scoliosis and a childhood back injury from a fall out of a second-story window.
The record does not reflect that Richards' lawyer objected to the introduction of any evidence at trial, nor did he file any written or oral motion in limine to prevent these references to a medical-legal cabal, although it appears from voir dire through closing argument the defense centered on the issue of whether the Richardses, Nussbaum, and her physicians acted individually or in concert to concoct or exaggerate her injuries in order to obtain a larger settlement or judgment.
Richards presented exhibits totaling $20,000 in medical expenses, estimates of over $13,000 in lost wages and testimony supporting her claims of pain and suffering and her husband's loss of her services. The testimony of Dr. Robert Corn, who examined Richards at Santini's lawyer's request, contradicted much of the findings of Drs. Paras and Mars and questioned the nature and extent of the medical treatment Richards received.
The unanimous jury verdict awarded Richards $11,740.25 in compensation and $0 to her husband for his claim. Santini's automobile liability insurance carrier promptly forwarded a check in the amount of the verdict to the Richardses' lawyer, who negotiated the check and deposited the funds in his IOLTA escrow account. Apparently no releases or satisfaction of judgment were endorsed by the Richardses or their lawyer. The Richardses then filed a motion for a new trial claiming that passion and prejudice influenced the jury's decision. The Richardses' lawyer claimed the insurance carrier then demanded return of its money and he complied.
The judge granted the motion for new trial, finding in relevant part:
Pursuant to Civil Rule 59(A)(4) and (6), Plaintiff's Motion for New Trial is hereby GRANTED. The jury's award to the Plaintiffs, Gloria Richards and Mark Richards was inadequate in that the jury's award failed to compensate Gloria Richards for her medical expenses, lost wages and pain and suffering and failed to compensate Mark Richards for his loss of consortium. The jury's award appears to have been given under the influence of passion or prejudice and is not sustained by the weight of the evidence.
Santini's second assignment of error states:
II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING PLAINTIFFS- APPELLEES' MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL WHEN PRIOR TO THE FILING OF THE MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL THE COURT LOST JURISDICTION OVER THE CLAIMS DUE TO THE PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES' NEGOTIATION AND SATISFACTION OF DEFENDANT-APPELLANT'S CHECK PAID IN THE AMOUNT OF THE FINAL JUDGMENT RENDERED BY THE JURY ON ALL ISSUES ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT AND LITIGATED AT TRIAL.
Santini submits that the acceptance and cashing of the insurance company's check by the Richardses' lawyer satisfied the judgment and precluded any appeal and, by extension, also deprived the trial judge from jurisdiction to rule on the motion for a new trial. She does not address the fact that the money wa
Page 1 2 3 4 Ohio Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|