LAWRENCE M. FROMAN v. DR. GEORGE NOE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED: June 11, 1999; 2:00 p.m.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
C ommonwealth O f K entucky
C ourt O f A ppeals
NO.
1997-CA-003093-MR
LAWRENCE M. FROMAN
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM BOYLE CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE STEPHEN M. SHEWMAKER, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 96-CI-000094
v.
DR. GEORGE NOE
APPELLEE
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE:
DYCHE, GUIDUGLI, AND MCANULTY, JUDGES.
DYCHE, JUDGE:
Appellant is an inmate incarcerated by the
Corrections Cabinet (“Corrections”).
While he was a prisoner at
Northpoint Training Center in Boyle County, he was a patient of
appellee, who is an employee of Corrections.
He apparently grew
dissatisfied with his treatment, and initiated two separate
actions against appellee, claiming injury as a result of
appellee’s neglect or indifference to his medical conditions.
The two actions were consolidated by the Boyle Circuit
Court, and discovery requests were traded by the parties.
Appellee served appellant with Interrogatories and a Request for
Production of Documents on October 10, 1996.
Due to appellant’s
transfer to another institution, appellee offered, and appellant
accepted, an extension of time until January 1, 1997, to respond.
He did not do so, and appellee sought a motion to compel;
appellant’s response to the motion indicated that he was not
going to answer because he was dissatisfied with appellee’s
response to his discovery requests.
On February 11, 1997, the trial court ordered Froman to
respond within thirty days.
On February 22, 1997, he filed a
response, but gave substantive answers to only two of eleven
interrogatories, and gave no substantive response to the other
request.
On April 9, 1997, appellee moved the trial court to
dismiss the action for appellant’s failure to comply with the
earlier order.
Appellant responded to that motion with a motion
for judgment on the pleadings.
Ky. R. Civ. Pro. 12.03.
The
trial court denied both motions, and ordered appellant to respond
to the discovery requests within ten days of the date of the
order.
He did not do so, and appellee again asked the trial
court to dismiss the action; appellant responded to the motion by
claiming physical disability, limited access to legal resources,
and past compliance to the best of his ability.
The trial court
granted appellee’s motion, and this appeal followed.
We affirm.
The trial court gave as its reason for dismissal
appellant’s failure to comply with its February 11 and October
21, 1997, orders.
We think this is a sufficient articulation of
reason to comply with Greathouse v. American National Bank &
-2-
Trust Company, Ky. App., 796 S.W.2d 868 (1990).
clear.
The facts are
Appellant wilfully and repeatedly refused to comply with
orders of the trial court, despite multiple opportunities to do
so.
Dismissal is within the trial court’s discretion, and we
find no abuse of same.
The order of the Boyle Circuit Court is affirmed.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
Lawrence M. Froman, Pro Se
LaGrange, Kentucky
Amy V. Barker
Justice Cabinet
Frankfort, Kentucky
-3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
