 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Rankin v. Willow Park Convalescent Home12/19/1994
PATTON, Presiding Judge.
The trial court dismissed plaintiff Estella Rankin's complaint against defendants Willow Park Convalescent Home, the Industrial Commission of Ohio, and the Bureau of Workers' Compensation as a sanction for failing to comply with discovery orders. The court granted defendants' motions to dismiss, due to plaintiff's failure to comply with court-ordered discovery. Plaintiff appeals the dismissal, assigning three errors that collectively argue the court abused its discretion by dismissing the case for failure to respond to interrogatories.
Plaintiff's complaint alleged she suffered work-related injuries while employed at Willow Park. The commission served plaintiff with a set of interrogatories in January 1992. When plaintiff did not response, the commission filed a motion to compel answers to those interrogatories. On June 4, 1992, the same day the court granted the motion to compel, plaintiff responded to all but Interrogatory No. 25, which asked plaintiff to complete and sign a "Medical Authorization" attached to the interrogatories. Plaintiff did not sign the authorization, but indicated a willingness to complete and sign Medical authorization for a "specific provider."
The commission then filed a motion in limine, seeking to ban plaintiff from introducing into evidence at trial any medical records the commission could not obtain without plaintiff's authorization. The court did not rule on the motion but, on November 9, 1992, issued an order requiring plaintiff to provide medical authorization for "all medical practitioners providing treatment to plaintiff for the alleged injury."
Plaintiff had not provided the ordered authorizations by July 1993, so defendants filed separate motions to dismiss the case. The commission's motion contained a letter from a records service, which documented the service's repeated unsuccessful attempts to contact plaintiff's attorney and obtain the necessary authorization for obtaining the medical records. Plaintiff responded to the motions to dismiss by asserting she had provided the necessary authorizations. The commission supplemented its motions to dismiss with documentatiosshowing plaintiff had not authorized the release of medical records from St. Luke's Hospital.
On November 11, 1993, the court granted the separate motions to dismiss of the defendants.
Plaintiff first argues the court erred by dismissing her complaint when the court failed to give her notice of its intent to dismiss the action.
Civ.R. 37(B)(2)(c) states:
"If any party * * * fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery, * * * the court in which the action is pending may make such orders in regard to the failure as are just, and among others * * * may dismiss] the action or proceeding or any part thereof * * *[.]"
The trial court has broad discretion to impose sanctions for violations of discovery rules, and this court will not reverse sanctions absent an abuse of that discretion. Furcello v. Klammer (1980), 67 Ohio App.2d 156, 158, 21 O.O.3d 454, 456, 426 N.E.2d 187, 189. However, when ordering dismissal as a sanction under Civ.R. 41(B)(1), the trial court must give prior notice of its intent to dismiss a case with prejudice in order to allow the non-complying party one last chance to obey the court order in full. Ohio Furniture, Co. v. Mindala (1986), 22 Ohio St.3d 99, 101, 22 OBR 133, 134, 488 N.E.2d 881, 883; Carr v. Green (1992), 78 Ohio App.3d 487, 491, 605 N.E.2d 431, 434; Loynd v. Scott Molders, Inc. (1990), 62 Ohio App.3d 888, 893-894, 577 N.E.2d 736, 739-740. Willow Park concedes the court did not provide the required advance
Page 1 2 Ohio Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|