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: Wednesday, November 26, 2025
CAPTION: HAGGARD V. DURRANI, MEYERS V. DURRANI
APPEAL NOS.: C-240300, C-240301
TRIAL NOS.: A-1706514, A-1706581
KEY WORDS: CIV.R. 42 — EVID.R. 601(B)(5)(b) — HABIT EVIDENCE — JURY INSTRUCTIONS— PUNITIVE DAMAGES — SETOFF — CIV.R. 19(A) — ABSENT-DEFENDANT INSTRUCTION — R.C. 2315.21(D)(2)(b)
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.
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 issuing an absent-defendant instruction that advised that the defendant doctor’s absence from the 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 curing the absence of plaintiffs’ insurers as the real parties in interest under Civ.R. 19(A) by excusing defendant’s payment for past medical expenses, absent appropriate releases.
The trial court did not err in limiting the demonstration of spinal anatomy by defense experts because such demonstrations would have been cumulative.
The trial court did not err in allowing an award for the plaintiffs’ future medical damages where predictive evidence was submitted at trial.
The trial court erred in failing to cap punitive damages against an individual doctor-defendant at $350,000 pursuant to R.C. 2315.21(D)(2)(b), as the statute imposes an absolute cap of $350,000 for individuals, but it did not err in failing to cap damages against a business at this rate, given that no evidence existed that the business was a small employer.
The trial court erred in denying defendants’ request for setoff where this court recently overturned the precedent relied on by the trial court and held that intentional tortfeasors are entitled to a setoff under R.C. 2307.28(A).
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND CAUSE REMANDED
JUDGES: OPINION by KINSLEY, P.J.; BOCK and NESTOR, JJ., CONCUR.
CAPTION: STATE V. THURMOND
APPEAL NO.: C-250035
TRIAL NO.: B-2304681
KEY WORDS: SECOND AMENDMENT — CONSTITUTIONAL — WEAPONS UNDER DISABILITY — PENDING INDICTMENT
SUMMARY: The trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion to dismiss his charge for having weapons under disability where the State failed to carry its burden under the Second Amendment to show that prohibiting defendant from possessing a weapon while under indictment for a drug offense, see R.C. 2923.13(A)(3), was consistent with our Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
JUDGMENT: REVERSED IN PART AND APPELLLANT DISCHARGED IN PART
JUDGES: OPINION by BOCK, J.; CROUSE, J., CONCURS; KINSLEY, P.J., CONCURS IN JUDGMENT ONLY.
CAPTION: NEWMAN V. DURRANI
APPEAL NOS.: C-250126, C-250127, C-250128
TRIAL NOS.: A-1601535, A-1601534, A-1706541
KEY WORDS: FINAL ORDER — R.C. 2505.02(B)(8) — MEDICAL CLAIM — STATUTE OF REPOSE — R.C. 2305.113 — ABSENT-DEFENDANT TOLLING — R.C. 2305.15
SUMMARY: Where the trial court determined that amended R.C. 2305.15 is not applicable to plaintiffs’ medical-malpractice complaints in the absence of express intent from the General Assembly that the amended statute applies retroactively, the trial court’s orders denying defendants’ motions for judgment on the pleadings on this basis of the medical-claim statute of repose are not final orders under R.C. 2505.02(B)(8) as the orders do not restrain or restrict enforcement of any state statute.
JUDGMENT: APPEALS DISMISSED
JUDGES: OPINION by ZAYAS, J.; KINSLEY, P.J., and CROUSE, J., CONCUR.
CAPTION: STATE V. HORTON
APPEAL NO.: C-250167
TRIAL NO.: 24/CRB/14031
KEY WORDS: MOOT
SUMMARY: Defendant’s appeal was moot where, after obtaining a stay of his sentence, he voluntarily completed the sentence while his appeal was pending.
JUDGMENT: APPEAL DISMISSED
JUDGES: OPINION by ZAYAS, P.J.; BOCK and NESTOR, JJ., CONCUR.
CAPTION: IN RE: L.K.
APPEAL NO.: C-250179
TRIAL NO.: F/24/802 Z
KEY WORDS: CHILDREN — NEGLECT — R.C. 2151.03 — MANIFEST WEIGHT
SUMMARY: Where the stipulated facts failed to establish that the child lacked adequate parental care or that, because of Mother’s conduct, the child suffered a physical or mental injury that harmed or threatened to harm his health or welfare, the juvenile court’s adjudication of the child as neglected under R.C. 2151.03(A)(2) and (6) was not supported by clear and convincing evidence and was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART
JUDGES: OPINION by CROUSE, P.J.; BOCK and NESTOR, JJ., CONCUR.
CAPTION: STATE V. GRAVES
APPEAL NO.: C-250194
TRIAL NO.: B-2505146
KEY WORDS: BURGLARY — SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE — MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE
SUMMARY: Defendant’s conviction for burglary was supported by sufficient evidence and not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence where the judge, in a bench trial, heard testimony from officers and the victim, watched body worn camera footage, and saw photos, all of which demonstrated forced entry by defendant.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
JUDGES: OPINION by NESTOR, J.; KINSLEY, P.J., and BOCK, J., CONCUR.
CAPTION: STATE V. HENRY
APPEAL NO.: C-250200
TRIAL NO.: C/24/CRB/18377
KEY WORDS: ASSAULT — SELF-DEFENSE — BURDEN OF PROOF — MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE
SUMMARY: Defendant’s conviction for assault was not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence where the State met its burden to show that defendant was not provoked when he punched the victim in the face; testimonial evidence reflected the victim had not attempted to strike or otherwise interact with defendant, and the victim had his back to defendant when defendant turned him around and punched him in the face.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
JUDGES: OPINION by MOORE, J.; KINSLEY, P.J., and NESTOR, J., CONCUR.