COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT 
                        COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA 
                        NOS. 71417 and 71437
DWIGHT K. CARSON, M.D.           :
                                 :
                                 :
        PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE       :    JOURNAL ENTRY 
                                 :
v.                               :        AND 
                                 : 
BARBARA KENNEY, M.D.             :      OPINION 
                                 :
                                 :
        DEFENDANT-APPELLANT      :
DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT 
OF DECISION:                     MAY 29, 1997
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:         Civil appeal from 
                                 Common Pleas Court, 
                                 No. CV-295682.
JUDGMENT:                        DISMISSED.
DATE OF JOURNALIZATION:                                          
APPEARANCES:  
For Plaintiff-Appellee:          John R. Irwin, Esq.
                                 1620 Midland Building
                                 101 Prospect Avenue, West
                                 Cleveland, OH  44115-1027
For Defendant-Appellant:         Henry A. Hentemann, Esq.
                                 John P. O'Donnell, Esq.
                                 Meyers, Hentemann, Schneider
                                    & Rea
                                 2100 Superior Building
                                 815 Superior Avenue, N.E.
                                 Cleveland, OH  44114
                                -2-
DAVID T. MATIA, J.:  
   In light of Walters v. The Enrichment Ctr. of Wishing Well, Inc.
(1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 118, in which the Supreme Court held:  
          The denial of an asserted statutory privilege
          of   confidentiality   is  not   a  statutory
          proceeding for purposes  of R.C. 2505.02, but
          is an  interlocutory discovery  order and  is
          neither final  nor appealable.   (Palikoff v.
          Adam [1993],  67 Ohio  St.3d 100, 616  N.E.2d
          213, syllabus, and State ex rel.  Steckman v.
          Jackson [1994], 70 Ohio St.3d 420, 639 N.E.2d
          83, paragraph seven  of the syllabus, applied
          and followed.)  
Id. at syllabus, this court  hereby dismisses the instant  appeal
sua sponte as  it does  not constitute a  final appealable  order
pursuant to R.C. 2505.02.  
   Appeal dismissed.  
                                -3-
   This appeal is dismissed. 
   It is,  therefore, considered  that said  appellee recover  of
appellant his costs herein taxed.  
   It is ordered  that a special  mandate be  sent to the  Common
Pleas directing said court to carry this judgment into execution.
   A  certified copy of  this entry shall  constitute the mandate
pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.  
JAMES D. SWEENEY, C.J. and     
ANN DYKE, J., CONCUR.          
                                      DAVID T. MATIA
                                           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 journalization of this court's announcement
.