Cerimele v. Vanburen ( 2013 )


Menu:
  • [Cite as Cerimele v. Vanburen, 
    2013-Ohio-1277
    .]
    STATE OF OHIO, MAHONING COUNTY
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
    SEVENTH DISTRICT
    JEANNINE CERIMELE                                 )   CASE NO. 11 MA 159
    )
    PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT                       )
    )
    VS.                                               )   OPINION
    )
    MAX M. VAN BUREN, D.V.M.                          )
    FAIRFIELD ANIMAL HOSPITAL                         )
    )
    DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES                      )
    CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS:                             Civil Appeal from the County Court No. 5
    of Mahoning County, Ohio
    Case No. 11 CVF 94 CNF
    JUDGMENT:                                             Affirmed.
    APPEARANCES:
    For Plaintiff-Appellant:                              Atty. Robert D. Vizmeg
    Anzellotti, Sperling, Pazol & Small Co.
    21 N. Wickliffe Circle
    Youngstown, Ohio 44515
    For Defendants-Appellees:                             Atty. John A. Fiocca, Jr.
    Smith, Rolfes & Skavdahl Co., LPA
    65 East State Street, Suite 2000
    Columbus, Ohio 43215
    JUDGES:
    Hon. Cheryl L. Waite
    Hon. Gene Donofrio
    Hon. Mary DeGenaro
    Dated: March 29, 2013
    [Cite as Cerimele v. Vanburen, 
    2013-Ohio-1277
    .]
    WAITE, J.
    {¶1}    Plaintiff-Appellant Jeanine Cerimele (“Appellant”) appeals the Mahoning
    County Court’s decision granting summary judgment to Defendant-Appellee Max M.
    Van Buren, D.V.M., (“Dr. Van Buren”).             The appeal arises out of a veterinary
    malpractice action against Dr. Van Buren in connection with the treatment of
    Appellant’s dog, Sir Bentley (“Bentley”).         Appellant argues that she submitted an
    affidavit from an expert witness and that the affidavit created enough genuine issues
    of material fact for her to survive summary judgment. Appellee contends that there
    were no genuine issues of material fact because the affidavit of Appellant’s expert
    testimony was not timely filed. As such, the trial court was not obliged to consider the
    affiant’s testimony when ruling on the motion for summary judgment.               Appellee
    further contends that the affidavit, even if timely filed, did not create any material
    issue of fact regarding proximate cause.           Appellee is correct.   Appellant did not
    establish that any genuine issue of material fact was in dispute that would prevent
    judgment in favor of Dr. Van Buren, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
    Statement of Facts
    {¶2}    Dr. Van Buren, D.V.M., has been practicing veterinary medicine for over
    thirty years, doing business as Fairfield Animal Hospital, a registered trade name,
    since 1992. Dr. Van Buren’s business form is a sole proprietorship, not a corporation
    or a partnership.
    {¶3}    Appellant is the owner of a West Highland Terrier named Bentley who
    was born December 7, 2007.              Appellant first brought Bentley to Fairfield Animal
    Hospital in February of 2008 for shots and an exam. Dr. Van Buren continued to
    -2-
    provide routine veterinary care for Bentley between February 25, 2008, and April 20,
    2009.
    {¶4}    On January 15, 2009, Appellant presented Bentley to Dr. Van Buren
    seeking treatment for the dog’s red, itchy skin and ears. Appellant made no mention
    of any problems she observed regarding Bentley’s penis or genital area at that time.
    After examination, Dr. Van Buren diagnosed Bentley with generalized allergic
    dermatitis with secondary pyroderma, and he prescribed antibiotics and an anti-
    inflammatory.     Dr. Van Buren also provided Appellant with literature regarding
    interdigital pyroderma and atopy.    Bentley was rechecked by Dr. Van Buren on
    January 20, 2009. At that time, Bentley’s penile sheath appeared to be inflamed and
    traumatized. Dr. Van Buren concluded that this condition occurred as a result of
    Bentley’s generalized allergic dermatitis condition. He dispensed a topical ointment
    with an antibiotic, an antifungal agent, and an anti-inflammatory agent to be rubbed
    on the affected areas.
    {¶5}    On January 21, 2009, Appellant contacted Dr. Van Buren, indicating
    Bentley was licking his prepuce, which was bleeding. She requested that Dr. Van
    Buren prescribe a nerve pill to calm Bentley down, and he prescribed a mild
    tranquilizer. Appellant brought Bentley back for an examination to determine the
    cause of the bleeding. Upon examination, Dr. Van Buren found Bentley’s penile
    sheath and penis to be normal. Dr. Van Buren then passed a urinary catheter easily
    into Bentley’s bladder with no resistance, and the urine was normal in color and
    consistency. There was no blood in the urine, and there was no evidence of fracture
    -3-
    of the “os penis” (the bone in the penile sheath of a canine). At that time, Dr. Van
    Buren noted no abnormalities in Bentley’s reproductive tract or urine, and concluded
    that Bentley’s bleeding was probably the cause of self-trauma. Dr. Van Buren then
    dispensed a protective Elizabethan collar to prevent Bentley from biting or gnawing
    the traumatized area.
    {¶6}   Appellant reported that Bentley’s biting behavior continued over the
    next few weeks, and she provided Dr. Van Buren with an updated status report and
    request for medication refills on January 26, 2009, and February 4, 2009. On the
    latter occasion, Appellant reported that Bentley had begun biting and chewing his
    penis again, causing bleeding. She also requested they try something besides the
    collar and the sedative. Dr. Van Buren provided a treatment for canine obsessive
    compulsive disorder.
    {¶7}   Bentley continued to be treated medically between February 9 and
    March 21, 2009. On April 9, 2009, Dr. Van Buren saw Bentley again and noted that
    the dog was still engaged in recurrent licking of the penis area. Dr. Van Buren
    attributed this problem to a probable underlying separation anxiety issue. On April
    20, 2009, Dr. Van Buren prescribed more antibiotic ointment. This was the last time
    Dr. Van Buren provided veterinary care and treatment for Bentley.
    {¶8}   On April 22, 2009, Appellant took Bentley to get a second opinion from
    veterinarian T.E. Reeping, D.V.M. at the Crago Veterinary Clinic in Youngstown.
    According to the Crago Veterinary Clinic records, appended to Dr. Van Buren’s
    affidavit, Dr. Reeping found the dog’s penis was ulcerated and bleeding on that
    -4-
    occasion. There is nothing in Dr. Reeping’s records which would suggest the penis
    bone was fractured as of April 22, 2009. Dr. Reeping recommended Bentley be
    examined by a veterinary surgical specialist.
    {¶9}   On April 28, 2009, Appellant presented Bentley to Dr. Sheldon Padgett,
    D.V.M., a veterinary surgeon associated with Metropolitan Veterinary Hospital in
    Akron. Upon examination, Dr. Padgett diagnosed a fracture of the penis bone, and
    recommended penile amputation, which was successfully performed by Dr. Padgett
    the same day.
    Statement of the Case
    {¶10} A complaint sounding in professional veterinarian negligence was filed
    on March 11, 2011 in Mahoning County Court No. 5. Dr. Van Buren filed his answer
    to the complaint on March 25, 2011, and filed a motion for summary judgment on
    March 31, 2011.
    {¶11} On April 13, 2011, Appellant filed a Civ.R. 56(F) motion seeking an
    additional 90 days within which to respond to Dr. Van Buren’s motion. On April 22,
    2011, the trial court sustained the motion, ordering her to respond by July 12, 2011.
    The trial court’s order also set the non-oral hearing date for summary judgment on
    July 12, 2011.
    {¶12} Appellant filed her memorandum in opposition to defendant’s motion for
    summary judgment with the court on July 12, 2011. Attached to the memorandum
    was an unsworn, undated, and unsigned affidavit of Appellant’s veterinary expert,
    Sheldon Padgett, D.V.M. On August 1, 2011, Dr. Van Buren filed a reply brief.
    -5-
    {¶13} On August 5, 2011, without obtaining leave of court, Appellant filed a
    signed affidavit from Dr. Padgett.      This was done twenty-four days after the
    dispositive motion response date of July 12, 2011.       The affidavit itself was not
    executed until July 20, 2011, which was eight days after the discovery deadline date
    had passed.
    {¶14} On August 12, 2011, the trial court sustained Dr. Van Buren’s motion
    for summary judgment, dismissing the suit. This appeal followed.
    Standard of Review
    {¶15} An appellate court reviews a grant of summary judgment de novo,
    independently and without deference to the trial court’s decision. Ohio Govt. Risk
    Mgt. Plan v. Harrison, 
    115 Ohio St.3d 241
    , 
    2007-Ohio-4948
    , 
    874 N.E.2d 1155
    , ¶5,
    citing Comer v. Risko, 
    106 Ohio St.3d 185
    , 
    2005-Ohio-4559
    , 
    833 N.E.2d 712
    , ¶8. “A
    grant of summary judgment will be affirmed only when the requirements of Civ.R.
    56(C) are met.” Adkins v. Chief Supermarket, 3d Dist. No. 11-06-07, 
    2007-Ohio-772
    ,
    at ¶7. The party moving for summary judgment must establish: (1) there are no
    genuine issues of material fact; (2) that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a
    matter of law; and (3) that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion and that
    conclusion is adverse to the non-moving party, said party being entitled to have the
    evidence construed most strongly in his favor. 
    Id.,
     citing Civ.R. 56(C); Horton v.
    Harwick Chem. Corp., 
    73 Ohio St.3d 679
    , 
    653 N.E.2d 1196
     (1995), paragraph three
    of the syllabus.
    ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
    -6-
    THE        TRIAL        COURT         ERRED         IN       GRANTING
    DEFENDANT/APPELLEE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
    AS    PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT          HAS    PRESENTED        SUFFICIENT
    COMPETENT        EVIDENCE       SHOWING      GENUINE      ISSUES      OF
    MATERIAL FACT.
    A. The timeliness of the affidavit of Sheldon Padgett, D.V.M.
    {¶16} Appellant contends that the July 20, 2011, affidavit of Dr. Padgett
    presented genuine issues of material fact that should have prevented the court from
    granting summary judgment to Appellee. Appellee argues, in response, that the
    affidavit was not filed in time to be used as evidence to overcome summary
    judgment. Appellee is correct.
    {¶17} In a veterinary malpractice action, “ ‘[p]roof of the recognized standards
    [of the medical community] must necessarily be provided through expert testimony.’
    Bruni v. Tatsumi (1976), 
    46 Ohio St.2d 127
    , 131-132, 
    346 N.E.2d 673
    . Additionally,
    the issue of ‘whether the [defendant] has proceeded in the treatment of a patient with
    the requisite standard of care and skill must ordinarily be determined from the
    testimony of medical experts.’ Id. at 130, 
    346 N.E.2d 673
    .” Ullmann v. Duffus, 10th
    Dist. No. 05AP-299, 
    2005-Ohio-6060
    , ¶15.          Without proper expert testimony,
    Appellant could not create a genuine issue of material fact. Thus, it is important to
    know whether or not the expert's affidavit was actually filed properly and on time.
    Although the trial court did not mention the untimeliness of the affidavit as a reason
    for granting summary judgment, it is certainly an issue for us to consider on appeal.
    -7-
    “[A] reviewing court may affirm the trial court's judgment for reasons that are different
    from those used by the trial court.” DeLost v. Ohio Edison, 7th Dist. No. 10 MA 162,
    
    2012-Ohio-4561
    , ¶15.
    {¶18} The record reflects that Dr. Van Buren filed his motion for summary
    judgment on March 31, 2011.        On April 13, 2011, Appellant filed a Civ.R. 56(F)
    motion seeking an additional 90 days to respond to the motion for summary judgment
    in order to depose Dr. Van Buren. However, this deposition never occurred.
    {¶19} On July 12, 2011, Appellant filed her brief in opposition to Dr. Van
    Buren’s motion for summary judgment. Attached to her brief were two documents:
    (1) the affidavit of Appellant Jeannine Cerimele, dated July 8, 2011; and (2) the
    unsigned and unsworn proposed affidavit of Dr. Padgett. The proposed affidavit did
    not comply with the evidentiary requirements set forth in Ohio Civ.R. 56(C) or (E).
    Thus, Dr. Padgett’s “affidavit” did not create any genuine issue of material fact that
    would preclude summary judgment, at least not on July 12, 2011.
    {¶20} Mahoning County Court Local Rule 8(H)(2) provides:
    Upon the filing of a motion for summary judgment, the opposing party
    may file a response within fourteen (14) days of receipt thereof,
    together with any accompanying briefs, affidavits or other material
    pursuant to Civil Rule 56(C), unless said time is extended by the Court.
    {¶21} In this case, the time for filing Appellant's response was extended by
    the trial court to July 12, 2011. It is apparent from the local rule that all evidentiary
    materials were required to be filed by that date.
    -8-
    {¶22} On August 5, 2011, Appellant filed the signed and sworn affidavit of Dr.
    Padgett. The affidavit indicates that it was executed on July 20, 2011, eight days
    after the dispositive motion response cutoff date of July 12, 2011. The affidavit was
    filed without first obtaining leave of court.   The trial court was not obligated to
    consider the affidavit when addressing the motion for summary judgment on August
    12, 2011, and neither is this Court.
    {¶23} Since Dr. Padgett’s affidavit was not timely filed and was never
    explicitly used or even acknowledged by the trial court, we will not accept it as
    properly filed evidence in opposition to summary judgment. As there is no expert
    evidence to support Appellant's claim, the trial court properly granted summary
    judgment to Dr. Van Buren.
    B. The content of the affidavit of Sheldon Padgett, D.V.M.
    {¶24} Even if we assume that the trial court had considered Dr. Padgett’s July
    20, 2011 affidavit, it creates no genuine issue of material fact to overcome summary
    judgment in Dr. Van Buren’s favor.
    {¶25} In Ohio, “in order to establish negligence by a veterinarian, it must be
    shown that the injury complained of was caused by the doing of a particular thing that
    a veterinarian of ordinary skill, care and diligence would not have done under like or
    similar circumstances, or by the failure or omission to do some particular thing that
    such a veterinarian would have done under like or similar circumstances.” Turner v.
    Sinha, 
    65 Ohio App.3d 30
    , 35, 
    582 N.E.2d 1018
     (12th Dist.1989), citing Littleton v.
    Good Samaritan Hosp. & Health Ctr., 
    39 Ohio St.3d 86
    , 93, 
    529 N.E.2d 449
     (1988).
    -9-
    “A veterinary malpractice claim has similar elements to a medical malpractice claim.
    The plaintiff must show (1) a duty to perform according to the appropriate veterinary
    standards; (2) that the veterinarian breached that duty; 3) that the breach was the
    proximate cause of the damages; and (4) that the plaintiff suffered damages.”
    Lauderbaugh v. Gellasch, 8th Dist. No. 91430, 
    2008-Ohio-6500
    , ¶7.
    {¶26} As noted earlier, these elements must be established by expert
    evidence. Bruni v. Tatsumi, supra, 46 Ohio St.2d at 131-132, 
    346 N.E.2d 673
    . The
    expert testimony must establish the injury was more likely than not caused by the
    defendant's negligence:      “The admissibility of expert testimony that an event is the
    proximate cause is contingent upon the expression of an opinion by the expert with
    respect to the causative event in terms of probability.” Stinson v. England, 
    69 Ohio St.3d 451
    , 
    633 N.E.2d 532
     (1994), paragraph one of the syllabus. Dr. Padgett’s
    affidavit does not state with any degree of medical probability that Dr. Van Buren's
    actions were the proximate cause of the injuries alleged in the complaint. Dr. Padgett
    stated that therapy, rather than surgery, may only have been “possible” rather than
    probable. (7/20/11 Affidavit, p. 3.) More importantly, Dr. Padgett's affidavit also
    states:     “Failure to discover the fracture, if present, during that initial visit and
    subsequent visits fell below the standard of care for veterinarians.”        (Emphasis
    added.) (7/20/11 Affidavit, p. 3.) This is mere speculation, which is not sufficient to
    overcome summary judgment.
    {¶27} The affidavit of Dr. Padgett does not provide any expert evidentiary
    support that Dr. Van Buren caused a compensable injury to Appellant.           For this
    -10-
    reason, the affidavit cannot be used as a basis for overturning the judgment of the
    trial court even if it had been timely filed.       Appellant's assignment of error is
    overruled.
    Conclusion
    {¶28} Appellant has alleged on appeal that there are genuine issues of
    material fact in dispute in this case and that the summary judgment in favor of Dr.
    Van Buren should be reversed. The record reflects that the affidavit of Dr. Padgett,
    which was Appellant's sole basis for arguing that the motion for summary judgment
    was inappropriate, was not filed on time. More to the point, the affidavit does not
    establish that veterinary malpractice took place, particularly the element of proximate
    cause.    For these reasons, Appellant's assignment of error is overruled and the
    judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
    Donofrio, J., concurs.
    DeGenaro, P.J., concurs.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11 MA 159

Judges: Waite

Filed Date: 3/29/2013

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014