Rorick v. Silverman et al
| Kimberly S. Rorick |
| Marc H. Silverman and Silverman Dental, LLC |
| 1:2014cv00312 |
| April 15, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio |
| Cincinnati Office |
| XX US, Outside State |
| Sandra S Beckwith |
| Stephanie K. Bowman |
| Personal Injury- Medical Malpractice |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
77
ORDER ADOPTING 72 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Defendant's Motion to Enforce Settlement 58 is GRANTED. This case is closed in this Court. Signed by Judge Timothy S. Black on 3/29/18. (sct)
|
|
Filing
72
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (REDACTED PUBLIC VERSION) re 58 Defendants' Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT Defendants' motion be GRANTED. Objections to R&R due by 8/7/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman on 7/24/2017. (km)
|
|
Filing
43
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 37 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. The motion is granted with respect to plaintiff's spoliation of evidence claim and that claim is dismissed with prejudice. The motion is denied with respect to the time of plaintiff's dental malpractice/negligence claims, but is granted as to the compensatory damages based on headaches experienced due to the root canal on tooth #18. Signed by Judge Sandra S Beckwith on 12/22/15. (mb)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Ohio Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
