Case ID: ohio-st-3d_71/html/0166-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Moyer, C.J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Purnell, Appellant, v. Orthopaedic Offices, Inc., Appellee.
    [Cite as Purnell v. Orthopaedic Offices, Inc. (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 166.]
    
      (No. 94-1701
    Submitted November 15, 1994
    Decided December 14, 1994.)
    
      Jacobs, Kleinman, Seibel & McNally and Mark J. Byrne, for appellant.
    
      Thompson, Hiñe & Flory and Deborah DeLong, for appellee.
   A discretionary appeal is allowed, the judgment of the court of appeals is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the trial court on the authority of Cosgrove v. Williamsburg of Cincinnati Mgt. Co., Inc. (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 281, 638 N.E.2d 991.

A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Weight, Resnick and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.

Moyer, C.J., concurs separately.

F.E. Sweeney, J., dissents.

Moyer, C.J.,

concurring separately. I concur separately in the judgment entry in the above-styled case. As stated in the concurring opinion in Cosgrove v. Williamsburg of Cincinnati Mgt. Co., Inc. (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 281, 638 N.E.2d 991, I do not agree with the law announced in the majority decision. Nevertheless, it is the law on the issue in the above-styled case. As I believe all parties should receive equal application of the law announced by this court, and only for that reason, I concur in the judgment entry.