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 15, 2023
CAPTION: POTTS V. DURRANI
APPEAL NOS.: C-220024, C-220034
TRIAL NO.: A-1206877
KEY WORDS: MEDICAL MALPRACTICE – EVID.R. 403 – EVID.R. 404 – ABUSE OF DISCRETION – HARMLESS ERROR – CUMULATIVE ERROR – EXPERT TESTIMONY – SETOFF – R.C. 2307.28 – CATASTROPHIC INJURY – R.C. 2323.43(A) – FUTURE DAMAGES – PAST MEDICAL EXPENSES – PREJUDGMENT INTEREST
SUMMARY: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants’ motion for a new trial based on evidentiary errors where references to the revocation of defendant doctor’s medical license were limited, other evidence challenging the doctor’s credibility was admitted, and other substantial competent evidence existed to support the jury’s verdict.
Where the video-deposition testimony offered by plaintiffs’ expert witness concerning plaintiff’s cancer diagnosis was improper and should not have been played for the jury, but where the trial court appropriately handled the issue by stopping the video and providing a curative instruction and where plaintiffs did not attempt to link the cancer diagnosis to defendant doctor’s treatment, any error in the admission of the testimony was harmless.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting testimony from plaintiffs’ expert witness referring to defendant doctor as a liar where the comments predominately related to the plaintiffs’ claim that defendant doctor had misrepresented plaintiff’s need for surgery.
Where portions of testimony offered by plaintiffs’ expert doctor witness concerning defendant doctor’s performance of the surgery went beyond the scope of a radiologist’s area of expertise, but where testimony from plaintiffs’ other expert witnesses indicated that performance of the surgery was not problematic and where plaintiffs’ counsel, in closing argument, focused on whether the doctor had misrepresented the need for the surgery and not whether he had botched the surgery, any error resulting from the admission of the expert’s testimony was harmless.
The trial court did not err in failing to disclose settlement agreements reached between plaintiffs and settling defendants where the trial court conducted an in camera review of the settlement agreements and determined the appropriate amount of setoff.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in submitting a jury interrogatory on whether plaintiff suffered a permanent physical functional injury where the record contained sufficient evidence in support of such a finding.
The trial court did not err in admitting evidence concerning plaintiff’s future damages or in awarding future damages where the evidence established that plaintiff would definitely need future treatment and provided specific estimates for the damages that would be incurred for that treatment.
Where there was no real-party-in-interest issue because the record demonstrated that one insurer settled its liens with plaintiff and the other insurer entered into a confidential settlement with plaintiff wherein plaintiff was obligated to reimburse the insurer from funds that he received, the trial court did not err in awarding plaintiff past medical expenses that had been paid by insurers.
The trial court erred in reinstating plaintiffs’ motion for prejudgment interest and court costs after plaintiffs withdrew the motion.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND CAUSE REMANDED IN C-220024; APPEAL DISMISSED IN C-220034
JUDGES: OPINION by CROUSE, P.J.; BERGERON and KINSLEY, JJ., CONCUR.
CAPTION: STATE V. EVENSON
APPEAL NO.: C-220618
TRIAL NO.: B-2000734
KEY WORDS: THEFT – R.C. 2913.02(A)(1) – UNAUTHORIZED USE – R.C. 2913.04(A) – OWNER – VEHICLE TITLE – CRIM.R. 29(A) – EVIDENCE – SUFFICIENCY – DISCOVERY VIOLATION – CRIM.R. 16 – SANCTION
SUMMARY: Defendant’s convictions for theft and unauthorized use of a motorcycle were based on sufficient evidence where the state established that, following the theft of his motorcycle, defendant transferred ownership of the motorcycle to his insurance company in exchange for $16,180.42 and, after the motorcycle was recovered, defendant subsequently stripped the motorcycle of parts.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted a notarized power of attorney because defendant received an unnotarized power of attorney in discovery and both notarized and unnotarized copies of other documents signed on the same day, which all established defendant’s transfer of ownership of the motorcycle to his insurance company.
JUDGES: OPINION by BOCK, J.; CROUSE, P.J., and ZAYAS, J., CONCUR.
CAPTION: IN RE: S.S.
APPEAL NO.: C-230075
TRIAL NO.: 03-11091X
KEY WORDS: JUVENILE – SEALING OF RECORDS – EXPUNGEMENT – RESTITUTION
SUMMARY: The juvenile court erred in denying the juvenile’s applications to seal and expunge his juvenile records by relying on unpaid juvenile restitution to conclude the applicant was not rehabilitated as an adult. [But see DISSENT: The juvenile court did not err in considering unpaid juvenile restitution to determine the applicant’s rehabilitation because the plain text of the juvenile record sealing statute permits the juvenile court to consider “[a]ny other circumstances that may relate to the [applicant’s] rehabilitation.” R.C. 2151.356(C)(2)(e)(vi).]
JUDGMENT: REVERSED AND CAUSE REMANDED
JUDGES: OPINION by BERGERON, J.; KINSLEY, J., CONCURS and ZAYAS, P.J., DISSENTS.
CAPTION: STATE V. PAYNE
APPEAL NO.: C-230144
TRIAL NO.: B-2201501
KEY WORDS: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/CRIMINAL FOURTH AMENDMENT SEARCH AND SEIZURE AUTOMOBLE EXCEPTION – PROBABLE CAUSE
SUMMARY: The trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress evidence found in his car where, after his car was stopped for two minor traffic offenses, police officers noticed a strong odor of marijuana coming from the car and saw a lottery ticket containing small particles of raw marijuana, and thus, had probable cause to search defendant’s vehicle under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement.
JUDGES: OPINION by WINKLER, J.; BERGERON, P.J., and BOCK, J., CONCUR.
CAPTION: IN RE: L.F.
APPEAL NO.: C-230270
TRIAL NO.: F17-1856X
KEY WORDS: CONTEMPT – MOOTNESS – CUSTODY – CHILDREN – R.C. 3109.04 – CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES – BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD
SUMMARY: Where the trial court purged mother’s contempt order, her appeal from that order was moot.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion by granting father’s motion for custody after finding there was a change in circumstances due to the hostility between the parents and the modification was in the best interest of the child.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED IN PART AND APPEAL DISMISSED IN PART
JUDGES: OPINION by BERGERON, J.; CROUSE, P.J., and WINKLER, J., CONCUR.