Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Earl v. Passman

August 05, 1998

EARL
v.
PASSMAN



Before Bridges, C.j., Coleman, And Diaz, JJ.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Bridges, C.j.

DANGIE LEE EARL, APPELLANT v. J.C. PASSMAN, M.D., P.A., APPELLEE

THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION AND MAY NOT BE CITED, PURSUANT TO M.R.A.P. 35-B

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/14/95

TRIAL JUDGE: HON. FORREST A. JOHNSON JR. COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: ADAMS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - MEDICAL MALPRACTICE

TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION: SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED IN FAVOR OF APPELLEE - MRCP 56

DISPOSITION AFFIRMED

Dangie Lee Earl pro se filed suit against Dr. J. C. Passman alleging that he was negligent in the surgical care he provided. Ms. Earl appeals from the order denying rehearing on the court's grant of summary judgment to Dr. Passman. We affirm the judgment of the Adams County Circuit Court.

Ms. Earl filed suit on July 13, 1994 against Dr. Passman. After failing to get adequate response to the requests for discovery, Dr. Passman filed a motion for summary judgment on April 1, 1995, alleging that Ms. Earl had failed to offer evidence that Dr. Passman failed to conform to the applicable standard of care. At the hearing on the motion on April 12, Ms. Earl argued that she had not received proper notice of the hearing and needed additional time to respond to the motion. The court gave her an additional ten days in which to file any response in opposition to the motion. It was not until June 14, 1995, or sixty-three days later, that the court granted the motion for summary judgment after no response was filed by Ms. Earl.

On June 30, 1995, Ms. Earl filed a "Response to Decision Summary Judgment in Favor of Defendant." On August 11, 1995, Ms. Earl filed a motion for relief from judgment. The motion was heard on September 26, 1995, and the court ruled that the case was to be reopened and that the previous order granting summary judgment would remain in effect, but Ms. Earl was given an additional thirty days to submit additional evidence to support her motion for relief from judgment. It was not until December 29, 1995, or ninety-three days later, that the court denied the motion for relief from judgment after no response was filed by Ms. Earl. On January 26, 1995, Ms. Earl filed a motion for new hearing requesting that the court set aside its summary judgment order and also filed a notice of appeal. On January 29, 1995, the court denied Ms. Earl's motion for new hearing.

On appeal, Ms. Earl lists the following issues:

I. IT WAS ERROR FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO GRANT A SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF.

II. IT WAS ERROR FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO EXONERATE THE DEFENDANT BASED ON WRONG JUDGMENT, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.