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: Friday, January 16, 2025
CAPTION: ALBERS V. LYON
APPEAL NO.: C-250017
TRIAL NO.: A-1903421
KEY WORDS: AMENDMENT – DISCOVERY – MEDIATION – PRIVILEGE – PROTECTIVE ORDER – R.C. 2710.04 – R.C. 2710.05 – WAIVER
SUMMARY: The trial court’s refusal to allow plaintiffs-appellants to amend their complaint was not an abuse of discretion because the motion to amend was not timely, and the information plaintiffs-appellants sought to amend was information that the trial judge relied on in granting a protective order.
Where the fact that an informal mediation had occurred was a pleaded to and admitted fact, and where plaintiffs did not sufficiently preserve their open court argument for appellate review, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a protective order on the grounds that the mediation privilege protected certain statements from discovery.
The trial court did not err in finding that defendants-appellees did not waive the mediation privilege where defendants-appellees did not expressly waive the privilege.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
JUDGES: OPINION by NESTOR, J.; KINSLEY, P.J., and MOORE, J., CONCUR.
CAPTION: BOGGS V. DURRANI, KOCH V. DURRANI, STALLINGS V. DURRANI
APPEAL NOS.: C-250068, C-250072, C-250275
TRIAL NOS.: A-1700307, A-1806348, A-1706456
KEY WORDS: CIV.R. 50(B) — JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT — CIV.R. 59(A) — MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL — CONSOLIDATED TRIALS — CIV.R. 42 — COMMON QUESTIONS OF LAW OR FACT — EXPERT TESTIMONY — EVID.R. 601 — EVID.R. 1002(Y) — HEARSAY — EVID.R. 702 — HARMLESS ERROR — JURY INSTRUCTIONS — FUTURE MEDICAL DAMAGES — SETOFF — PREJUDGMENT INTEREST
SUMMARY: The trial court did not abuse its discretion under Civ.R. 42 by joining plaintiffs’ medical claims for trial where plaintiffs proceeded under similar legal theories, underwent similar surgeries by defendant doctor, and presented identical expert witnesses, thus creating common questions of law and fact. [See CONCURRENCE: Concurring in the majority’s opinion on this issue but adding a postjudgment assessment of prejudice from the joinder of trials that reveals no reversible error.]
The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it permitted plaintiffs and plaintiffs’ experts to testify about prior surgeries performed on each plaintiff by defendant doctor, even though those prior surgeries were not at issue in the cases, because the testimony was in line with the court’s limiting instruction and any deviation from that instruction was harmless error.
While the trial court erred by admitting hearsay expert testimony, the error was harmless where if the challenged testimony was excised the record still supported the jury’s verdicts.
The trial court did not err in admitting testimonial evidence from plaintiffs’ experts as defendants’ various challenges concerning whether an expert was qualified to provide testimony under Evid.R 601, whether an expert’s testimony was admissible under Evid.R. 702, and alleged irrelevant evidence were meritless.
The trial court did not err when it denied defendants’ motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, because defendants failed to demonstrate that the evidence introduced at trial was insufficient to support the jury’s future-damages awards.
The trial court erred in denying defendants’ request for a setoff where this court held that intentional tortfeasors are entitled to a setoff under R.C. 2307.28(A).
The trial court did not err when it awarded plaintiffs prejudgment interest, and the court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that defendants had failed to make a good-faith effort to settle the cases.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND CAUSE REMANDED
JUDGES: OPINION by MOORE, J.; NESTOR, J., CONCURS and ZAYAS, P.J., CONCURS SEPARATELY.