Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): not a proximate-cause witness. Specifically, counsel stated: {¶ 33} “Your Honor, we are not going into long-term care of how this patient is going to be managed forever. We are going to go into standard of care. We are going to go into standard of care for an emergency physician.” {¶ 34} Ultimately, the trial court made its evidentiary ruling based on MVES’s proffer of Dr. Galan as a standard-of-care witness only. Since standard of care is never viewed in hindsight, the court properly ruled to limit Dr. Galan’s testimony to only that information known to Dr. Jackson when he treated Darlene. See Grabill v. Worthington Industries, Inc., 98 Ohio App.3d 739, 744-745, 649 N.E.2d 874, quoting Hetrick v. Marion-Res. Power Co. (1943), 141 Ohio St. 347, 358-359, 25 O.O. 467, 48 N.E.2d 103 (<HOLDING>). {¶ 35} MVES insists that even if we find that 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a grant of equitable relief requires diligence by the claimant (B) holding that foresight not retrospect is the standard of diligence (C) holding that rule 16bs good cause standard focuses on a partys diligence (D) holding that even if the standard for waiver is clear the standard was not met (E) recognizing implied obligation to use reasonable diligence
Output (English): holding that rule 16bs good cause standard focuses on a partys diligence