Patient brought medical malpractice action against orthopedic surgeon and vascular surgeon, alleging that amputation of patient's leg below knee resulted from defendants' negligence in failing to appreciate seriousness of inadequate blood supply to his foot and in failing to revascularize in timely manner.

Pfeifer, J., issued concurring opinion.

Cook, J., issued concurring opinion in which Moyer, C.J., concurred.

Wright, J., issued dissenting opinion.

On August 24, 1989, Nakoff [FN2] filed a malpractice action against Drs. Essig and Papas. [FN3] Nakoff contended that their negligence proximately caused the amputation of his right foot and leg below the knee. At trial, Nakoff maintained that Drs. Essig and Papas had been negligent in failing to appreciate the seriousness of the inadequate blood supply to his foot and in failing to revascularize it in a timely manner. The jury returned a $2,500,000 verdict in favor of Nakoff and against Drs. Essig and Papas. In conclusion, we hold that a trial court has broad discretion when imposing discovery sanctions. A reviewing court shall review these rulings only for an abuse of discretion. We fail to find the trial court abused its discretion in its rulings.

Judgment reversed.

END OF DOCUMENT

Copyright 1999-2008 FootLaw.com,Inc. All Rights Reserved.