affiant standard in Ohio

2018Fletcher v. University Hospitals of Cleveland, 120 Ohio St.3d 167 , 2008-Ohio-5379 , 897 N.E.2d 147 . {¶ 14} In its October 26, 2017 judgment entry granting the motion to dismiss, the trial court determined the following: Plaintiff argues that because Michele Carson is a nurse practitioner who is able to render diagnosis and prescribe medications, she is qualified to opine as to causation in this particular case.

2018Fletcher v. University Hospitals of Cleveland, 120 Ohio St.3d 167 , 2008-Ohio-5379 , 897 N.E.2d 147 . {¶ 14} In its October 26, 2017 judgment entry granting the motion to dismiss, the trial court determined the following: Plaintiff argues that because Michele Carson is a nurse practitioner who is able to render diagnosis and prescribe medications, she is qualified to opine as to causation in this particular case.

2022Id. {¶11} Civ.R. 10(D)(2)(a) requires that any complaint containing a medical claim, as defined in R.C. 2305.113, “shall be accompanied by one or more affidavits of merit relative to each defendant named in the complaint for whom expert testimony is necessary to establish liability.” “Affidavits of merit shall include all of the following: (i) A statement that the affiant has reviewed all medical records reasonably available to the plaintiff concerning the allegations contained in the complaint; (ii) A statement that the affiant is familiar with the applicable standard of care; (iii) The opini

2021Appellants could have challenged the affiant at the hearing where he represented Appellees if they believed his statements lacked credibility or sought to clarify whether his statements applied to Linda and Nancy (due to the lack of printouts regarding their names). {¶62} Apparently realizing various arguments they wish to raise on appeal were not voiced to the trial court, Appellants ask this court to recognize plain error. “[T]he fundamental rule is that an appellate court will not consider any error which could have been brought to the trial court's attention.” Schade v. Carnegie Body Co.,

2021Appellants could have challenged the affiant at the hearing where he represented Appellees if they believed his statements lacked credibility or sought to clarify whether his statements applied to Linda and Nancy (due to the lack of printouts regarding their names). {¶62} Apparently realizing various arguments they wish to raise on appeal were not voiced to the trial court, Appellants ask this court to recognize plain error. “[T]he fundamental rule is that an appellate court will not consider any error which could have been brought to the trial court's attention.” Schade v. Carnegie Body Co.,

1990When faced with determining the due process requirements prior to the determination of social security disability benefit payments, the United States Supreme Court observed that due process '"unlike some legal rules, is not a technical conception with a fixed content unrelated to time, place and circumstances.' Cafeteria Workers v. McElroy, 367 U.S. 886, 895 , *** (1961). '[D]ue process is flexible and calls for such procedural protections as the particular situation demands.' Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 481 , *** (1972). ***" Mathews v. Eldridge (1976), 424 U.S. 319, 334 .

1990When faced with determining the due process requirements prior to the determination of social security disability benefit payments, the United States Supreme Court observed that due process '"unlike some legal rules, is not a technical conception with a fixed content unrelated to time, place and circumstances.' Cafeteria Workers v. McElroy, 367 U.S. 886, 895 , *** (1961). '[D]ue process is flexible and calls for such procedural protections as the particular situation demands.' Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 481 , *** (1972). ***" Mathews v. Eldridge (1976), 424 U.S. 319, 334 .

1990When faced with determining the due process requirements prior to the determination of social security disability benefit payments, the United States Supreme Court observed that due process '"unlike some legal rules, is not a technical conception with a fixed content unrelated to time, place and circumstances.' Cafeteria Workers v. McElroy, 367 U.S. 886, 895 , *** (1961). '[D]ue process is flexible and calls for such procedural protections as the particular situation demands.' Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 481 , *** (1972). ***" Mathews v. Eldridge (1976), 424 U.S. 319, 334 .