Ryan LLP Injury Blog

The Eighth District Court of Appeals has upheld the trial court’s determination that the defendant, Tom Sobhani, was entitled to summary judgment because of the co-employee immunity rule set forth in O.R.C. 4123.741.  Because the plaintiff was precluded from recovering against Sobhani, they were not entitled to recover under their Underinsured Motorists Insurance policy.

The Seventh District Court of Appeals ruled that the trial court did not err when they granted a motion for summary judgment in favor of the doctor-defendant and hospital.  The Appellee contended that the cognizable event was the amputation of the appellant’s leg.  The Appellants argued that because the appellee had suspicion regarding the doctor’s ability to properly treat his wound prior to the amputation that the cognizable event occurred prior to the date of the amputation.  The Court agreed and ruled that the suspicion combined with the appellant’s refusal to be treated by the doctor constituted a cognizable event that would alert a reasonable person to the need to investigate the cause of the amputation.