Freshwater v. Scheidt
Ohio Supreme Court
714 N.E.2d 891 (1999)
- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
Dr. Robert Scheidt (defendant) performed laparoscopic surgery to remove Kathleen Freshwater's (plaintiff's) gallbladder. Freshwater later needed medical treatment for a perforated bowel, which she attributed to Scheidt's malpractice during the gallbladder surgery. Freshwater sued Scheidt. At trial, Dr. Karl Zucker appeared as an expert witness on Scheidt's behalf. Freshwater attempted to cross examine Zucker on an article Zucker had invited Dr. Fitzgibbons to write for a laparoscopy textbook Zucker edited. Zucker called Fitzgibbons' article helpful and useful, but because Zucker said he could not define what constitutes an authoritative statement on laparoscopy, he refused to call the article authoritative. Zucker said he used Fitzgibbons' article in forming his opinion of Scheidt's work, but he disagreed with some of Fitzgibbons' statements in the article. The judge denied Freshwater permission to use the laparoscopy textbook in cross examining Zucker. The trial ended in judgment for Scheidt. On appeal, an appellate court rejected Freshwater's argument that the judge erred in restricting her cross examination of Zucker. Freshwater appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Douglas, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 803,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
