COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT
                         COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
                                NO. 71081
                                   :    ACCELERATED DOCKET
RANDY NAKOFF                       :
                                   :       JOURNAL ENTRY
          Plaintiff-Appellee       :
                                   :            and
     -vs-                          :
                                   :          OPINION
                                   :
FAIRVIEW GENERAL HOSPITAL, ET AL.  :         PER CURIAM
                                   :
          Defendants-Appellants    :
                                   :
DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT                     MARCH 6, 1997        
OF DECISION:
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:           Civil appeal from 
                                   Common Pleas Court
                                   Case No. 175090
JUDGMENT:                          Affirmed.
DATE OF JOURNALIZATION:            __________________________
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee:            For Defendants-Appellants:
DON C. ILER, ESQ.                  JANIS L. SMALL, ESQ.
1640 Standard Building             JOHN S. POLITO, ESQ.
1370 Ontario Street                JOHN A. SIMON, ESQ.
Cleveland, Ohio  44113-1746        Jacobson Maynard Tuschman 
                                   & Kalur
                                   1001 Lakeside Avenue, #1600
                                   Cleveland, Ohio  44114-1192
                                -2-
PER CURIAM:
     In  this  accelerated  appeal,  we  must determine  whether  a
prejudgment interest  award is  subject to post-judgment  interest,
and  if so, whether prejudgment  interest and the underlying damage
award are merged for  purposes of the post-judgment interest.   The
trial court ruled prejudgment interest  is subject to post-judgment
interest  and  is  merged  with  the underlying  damage  award  for
purposes  of  post-judgment interest.    The appellant  appeals the
trial  court's  ruling and  assigns  the  following error  for  our
review.
          THE  TRIAL COURT  ERRED IN  GRANTING PLAINTIFF-
          APPELLEE'S REQUEST FOR  "POST-JUDGMENT INTEREST
          ON PRE-JUDGMENT INTEREST," IN VIOLATION TO R.C.
          1343.03.
     After  viewing the  record and  arguments of  the parties,  we
conclude the trial  court is correct.   Here, appellee was  awarded
$2,486,933.86 for  appellant's negligence.   Thereafter,  the trial
court awarded  him $964,793.87 in  prejudgment interest.   He  then
moved  to  merge the  two  awards and  have  post-judgment interest
calculated thereon.  The  trial court granted his motion,  and this
appeal followed.
     We  conclude  post-judgment  interest  may  be  calculated  on
prejudgment  interest  and  post-judgment interest  on  prejudgment
interest is not compounded  interest.  When  interest is in fact  a
part of the debt  owed, awarding interest upon the interest that is
a part of  the debt is not  compounded interest.  Singer  v. Celina
Group d.b.a.  National Mutual Insurance  Co. (May 30,  1995), Stark
                                -3-
App. No.  0333, unreported [relying on Anketel  v. Converse (1866),
17 Ohio St.11].
     Singer also held prejudgment interest shall be merged with the
underlying  damage award  for purposes  of post-judgment  interest.
Because prejudgment interest is a part of the judgment and like all
other components is  merged into a  single judgment, we uphold  the
trial court's decision.   See  Installation Inc.  v. Higley  South,
Inc. (Fla.  1996), 670  So.2d 929 (prejudgment  interest becomes  a
part of a single total sum adjudged to be due and owing, with post-
judgment interest then accruing on the merged total). 
     Accordingly, appellant's assigned error is overruled.
     Judgment affirmed.
                                -4-
     It is ordered  that Appellee recover  of Appellants his  costs
herein taxed.
     The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
     It is ordered that a special  mandate issue out of this  Court
directing  the  Common  Pleas  Court to  carry  this  judgment into
execution.  The  defendant's conviction  having been affirmed,  any
bail pending  appeal is  terminated.   Case remanded  to the  trial
court for execution of sentence.
     A certified  copy of this  entry shall constitute  the mandate
pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
                           PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, PRESIDING JUDGE
                           JOSEPH J. NAHRA, JUDGE
                           LEO M. SPELLACY, JUDGE
     N.B.  This entry  is an announcement of the  court's decision.
See App.R. 22(B),  22(D) and 26(A);  Loc.App.R. 27.  This  decision
will be journalized  and will become the judgment  and order of the
court pursuant to App.R. 22(E) unless a  motion for reconsideration
with supporting brief, per  App.R. 26(A), is filed within  ten (10)
days of the announcement of the  court's decision.  The time period
for review by the Supreme Court of Ohio shall begin to run upon the
.