Avery v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2017 Ohio 7376

Plaintiff Edward B. Avery, Sr., an inmate at Marion Correctional Institution, sued the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Correction for medical negligence, claiming he was prescribed a medication to which he was allergic and suffered systemic symptoms.
Avery sought treatment on Sept. 9, 2014 for lower abdominal pain; a nurse diagnosed a UTI and gave an unidentified medication (taken twice daily) without further explanation.
Over the following days Avery developed eye redness, sore throat, rashes, diarrhea, and welts; he later told staff and was told by a nurse/nurse practitioner that his symptoms appeared to be an allergic reaction and he was treated with Benadryl and prednisone.
Avery testified he had a known allergy to Bactrim and believed the prescribed drug was equivalent; he also alleged a prior similar reaction to Bactrim.
Documents from his medical file and a grievance decision were proffered but not admitted due to lack of authentication; no expert medical witness was presented at trial.
The magistrate granted defendant’s Civ.R. 41(B)(2) motion to dismiss for failure to present expert testimony on breach and proximate causation; the trial court adopted the magistrate’s legal conclusions and the appellate court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the grievance‑appeal decision was admissible as self‑authenticating (Evid.R. 902(5)) or otherwise admissible	Avery: the chief inspector’s decision is self‑authenticating and admissible hearsay	DRC: the document is not an official publication and was not authenticated at trial	Court: Not an official publication under Evid.R. 902(5); inadmissible without authentication
Whether expert medical testimony was required to prove standard of care, breach, and proximate causation in this medical‑negligence action	Avery: breach is within common knowledge (shouldn’t prescribe known allergen) so no expert needed; he offered nurse/nurse practitioner statements and grievance decision to show causation	DRC: plaintiff needed expert proof of breach and causation; proffered statements/documents aren’t qualifying expert evidence	Court: Even if breach could be proven by common knowledge, proximate causation required expert testimony; plaintiff failed to provide admissible expert evidence, so dismissal proper

Roberts v. Ohio Permanente Med. Group, 76 Ohio St.3d 483 (1996) (plaintiff must generally prove causation in medical negligence by expert testimony in terms of probability)
Stinson v. England, 69 Ohio St.3d 451 (1994) (expert causation opinion must be expressed as probability or reasonable degree of medical certainty)