Court Opinion

ID: 9797208
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 04:15:23.668831+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:53:15.565907
License: Public Domain

BUETTNER, P.J.,
concurring in result.
113 Under the facts of this case, expert medical testimony would be necessary to prove the injuries complained of were caused by the fall alleged. In the absence of Plaintiffs properly supported Rule 18(d) request for additional time to depose Mr. Ulicky's treating physician, I would affirm the summary judgment. However, because the Rule 13(d) request was made and supported by affidavit, I would reverse and remand for a ruling on the request for additional time to obtain evidentiary materials to support opposition to the motion for summary judgment. The trial court did not specifically rule on the request, nor did Defendant specifically respond to the request. Although this case was filed June 23, 2006, and the motion for summary judgment was filed November 19, 2007, there is nothing in the appellate record reflecting whether the case had been set for trial, what deadlines bad been set, whether discovery had concluded, or whether Plaintiff could have obtained an affidavit from the treating physician in a timely manner. As a result, the trial court should address Plaintiff's Rule 18(d) request.