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.

SOLICH v. WHEELING

March 31, 1982

William C. SOLICH, Plaintiff,
v.
George H. WHEELING, M.D., Orthopedic Specialists, Inc., and Lee Hospital, Defendants



The opinion of the court was delivered by: MARSH

MEMORANDUM

In the above entitled case, the plaintiff, William C. Solich, on January 22, 1982, filed and served a Complaint on the defendants, George H. Wheeling, M.D., Orthopedic Specialists, Inc. and Lee Hospital.

 On February 4, 1982, the defendants, George H. Wheeling, M.D. and Orthopedic Specialists, Inc., filed an Answer and New Matter. The New Matter alleged that the Complaint was barred by the Statute of Limitations and requested dismissal of the action.

 On February 18, 1982, the defendant, Lee Hospital, filed a Motion to Dismiss "by reason of plaintiff's failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." The Complaint alleges the following facts which defendant, Lee Hospital, contends are insufficient to state a claim against it:

 
(1) that the plaintiff alleged he entered the hospital and underwent surgery on June 4, 1979; and
 
(2) that the plaintiff alleged that he began to experience shortness of breath, a burning sensation in his chest, difficulty in breathing and substantial pain in and about the chest and rib area subsequent to his surgery.

 The Motion to Dismiss also sets forth that "(plaintiff's) demand for interest on the damages is contrary to the Rules of Procedure and the case law and should be stricken."

 An evidentiary hearing was held on March 10, 1982. All the defendants were represented by counsel. No evidence was presented. Briefs were ordered.

 Following the hearing the defendants, George H. Wheeling, M.D. and Orthopedic Specialists, Inc., on March 11, 1982, filed a Motion to Dismiss the action as to them because the Complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

 In our opinion, the defendants' Motions to Dismiss should be denied.

 I.

 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ยง 8(a)(2) provides:

 
"Claims for Relief. A pleading which sets forth a claim for relief ... shall contain ... (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that ...

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.