 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Kromenacker v. Blystone12/31/1987
CONNORS, J.
This case arises from a jury verdict in favor of appellee, William J. Blystone, and arises from a personal injury claim brought in the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas by appellants, Jeffrey M. Kromenacker and Janet Kromenacker. Jeffrey M. Kromenacker (hereinafter referred to as "appellant") was injured in a motorcycle-automobile collision; he contends that the accident was solely and proximately caused by appellee's alleged negligence in failing to yield the right-of-way while making a left turn at an intersection.
Prior to trial, appellant filed a motion in limine to exclude from evidence at trial the results of a blood-alcohol test administered at the hospital where appellant was treated after the accident. In his motion, appellant asserted that the blood test results were privileged material pursuant to R.C. 2317.02(B). The court denied this motion; the results of the blood-alcohol test and expert testimony concerning these results were admitted into evidence. The jury returned a verdict for the appellee basing their decision on Ohio's comparative negligence statute, R.C. 2315.19.
In his timely appeal from the judgment below, appellant raises two assignments of error:
Assignment of Error I
"The trial court erred in admitting into evidence the results of a blood test conducted for medical treatment purposes as well as testimony relating to such test results for the reasons that such test results comprised privileged information and were not relevant to the issues presented in the case.
Assignment of Error II
"The jury verdict in the trial court was against the manifest weight of the evidence in that the evidence presented at trial clearly established that the sole and proximate cause of the accident in question was defendant's negligence in the failing to yield thsright-of-way to oncoming traffic before making a left-hand turn, in violation of statute."
In his first assignment of error appellant claims that the blood-alcohol test results are privileged information pursuant to R.C. 2317.02(B) which provided (see 138 Ohio Laws, Part I, 2489), as relevant herein:
"The following persons shall not testify in certain respects:
"* * *
"(B) A physician concerning a communication made to him by his patient in that relation * * * but the physician may testify by express consent of the patient * * * or if the patient voluntarily testifies the physician may be compelled to testify on the same subject * * *. The provisions of this division apply to doctors of medicine, doctors of osteopathic medicine, and doctors of pediatric medicine."
In order for appellant to prevail on his first assignment of error, four criteria set forth in the statute itself must be satisfied. First, the blood-alcohol test results must be deemed to constitute a communication between the doctor and the patient. The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that physician-patient communications can be of two types-oral and written exchanges of information or physical examinations or observations. See Baker v. Indus. Comm. (1939), 135 Ohio St. 491, 496, 14 O.O. 392, 394, 21 N.E.2d 593, 595. See, also, State v. Dress (1982), 10 Ohio App.3d 258, 260-261, 10 OBR 372, 375, 461 N.E.2d 1312, 1316.
Second, the communication must relate to the patient's medical treatment, diagnosis or advice. Meier v. Peirano (1945), 76 Ohio App. 9, 11, 31 O.O. 342, 344, 62 N.E.2d 920, 922; Dress, supra, at 261, 10 OBR at 375, 461 N.E.2d at 1317.
Third, the privilege is applicable only if the individual communicating with the patient is a member of one of
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Ohio DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|