FIRST DISTRICT
COURT OF APPEALS
THESE SUMMARIES ARE NEITHER APPROVED IN ADVANCE NOR ENDORSED BY THE COURT. THEY ARE NOT HEADNOTES OR SYLLABI. INTERESTED PARTIES SHOULD OBTAIN COPIES OF THE ACTUAL DECISIONS FROM THE CLERK OF THE COURT OF APPEALS.
DATE: Wedneday, July 2, 2025
CAPTION: COURTNEY V. DURRANI
KOELBLIN V. DURRANI
APPEAL NOS.: C-240295, C-240296
TRIAL NOS.: A-1307859, A-1506160
KEY WORDS: CIV.R. 42 — EVID.R. 601(B)(5)(b) — HABIT EVIDENCE — JURY INSTRUCTIONS — COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE — ABSENT-DEFENDANT INSTRUCTION – CIV.R. 19(A)
SUMMARY: The trial court did not abuse its discretion under Civ.R. 42 in joining plaintiffs’ medical claims for trial where plaintiffs proceeded under similar legal theories, received similar surgeries from defendant, and presented identical expert witnesses, thus creating common questions of law and fact. [See CONCURRENCE: The trial court did not om holding a joint professional-negligence jury trial where this court’s precedent permits such claims to be joined and defendant-doctor failed to raise a general prejudice argument below; however, jointing professional-negligence claims for trial against the same defendant-professional carries an unacceptable risk of prejudice from jury confusion and verdicts based on improper propensity considerations.]
The trial court erred in admitting the testimony of a physician witness as to defendant’s habit in advising his patients where the physician witness did not testify to a proper foundation for defendant’s habit, but the error was harmless because there was no indication the jury relied on this testimony in reaching its verdicts.
The trial court did not err in admitting the testimony of an expert medical witness where the witness satisfied the standard of active clinical practice in the July 2023 version of Civ.R. 601(B)(5)(b), which applied to plaintiffs’ cases because they were pending at the time.
The trial court did not err in rejecting defendants’ request for a comparative negligence jury instruction, because defendants failed to present evidence that plaintiffs’ failure to complete physical therapy and their return to demanding jobs caused their ongoing injuries.
The trial court did not commit reversible error in issuing an absent-defendant jury instruction that advised that defendant doctor’s absence from trial gave rise to a negative inference but also advised that the jury retained the discretion to make or reject inferences.
The trial court did not err in determining that joining plaintiffs’ insurers as the real parties in interest under Civ.R. 19(A) was infeasible on the eve of trial and in curing their absence from trial by excusing defendant’s payment for past medical expenses absent appropriate releases.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
JUDGES: OPINION by KINSLEY, P.J.; CROUSE, J. CONCURS and BOCK, J., CONCURS SEPERATELY.
CAPTION: STATE V. BENSON
APPEAL NO.: C-240369
TRIAL NO.: B-1701853
KEY WORDS: POSTCONVICTION PETITION — INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL — EXPERT TESTIMONY
SUMMARY: The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant’s R.C. 2953.21 petition for postconviction relief after an evidentiary hearing where defendant failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability that the result of her trial would have been different but for her trial counsel’s failure to qualify the defense witness as an expert so as to challenge the State’s expert witness in accident reconstruction where: the defense witness was an expert in videography and computer imaging and not accident reconstruction; the jury was able to review the extensive video evidence for themselves and observe any details that the defense witness would have testified about; the jury heard the defense witness’s trial testimony that the video showed that defendant driver’s front tires had already been turned towards the victim as a result of defendant driver reversing her car; and defendant driver’s credibility was damaged where the video evidence contradicted defendant driver’s statement to police.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
JUDGES: OPINION by CROUSE, J.; ZAYAS, P.J., and NESTOR, J., CONCUR.
CAPTION: STATE V. JONES
APPEAL NO.: C-240397
TRIAL NOS.: C/24/TRD/593/A/B
KEY WORDS: DUE PROCESS — DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE
SUMMARY: Defendant’s due-process rights were not violated where the State failed to preserve an officer’s body-worn-camera video where the video was only potentially useful and not materially exculpatory, and defendant did not show bad faith on the part of the State.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
JUDGES: OPINION by ZAYAS, P.J.; CROUSE and BOCK, JJ., CONCUR.
CAPTION: IN RE: S.H. AND Y.H.
APPEAL NO.: C-250137
TRIAL NO.: F/05/3098 Z
KEY WORDS: PARENTAL TERMINATION — R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) — R.C. 2151.353(E) — BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD
SUMMARY: The juvenile court’s order terminating appellant-father’s parental rights and granting permanent custody of two children to the child-services agency was supported by sufficient evidence and not against the weight of the evidence where father failed to attend drug screenings as required by the case plan, was indicted on felony drug-trafficking charges during the pendency of the case, and could not establish that he had any stable income or housing, which constituted clear and convincing evidence supporting the juvenile court’s findings that the children could not or should not be placed with father within a reasonable time and that permanent custody to the child-services agency was in the children’s best interest.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
JUDGES: OPINION by BOCK, J.; KINSLEY, P.J., and ZAYAS, J., CONCUR.
CAPTION: IN RE: C/B CHILDREN
APPEAL NO.: C-250146
TRIAL NO.: F/21/911 Z
KEY WORDS: R.C. 2151.414 — PARENTAL TERMINATION — BEST INTEREST
SUMMARY: The juvenile court’s decision granting permanent custody of the children to the Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services was supported by sufficient evidence and not against the weight of the evidence where the record supports the juvenile court’s determination that mother had failed to substantially remedy the concerns that initially caused the children’s removal.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
JUDGES: OPINION by ZAYAS, J.; KINSLEY, P.J., and BOCK, J., CONCUR.