Bolen v. Mohan
2017 Ohio 7911
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In August 2008 Ronnie Bolen underwent cardiac catheterization and attempted stenting by Dr. Geetha Mohan; one stent became dislodged and lodged in the left main coronary artery. A subsequent procedure revealed the stent and Dr. O’Shaugnessy removed it via open‑heart bypass surgery.
- Ronnie and Carol Bolen sued Dr. Mohan and North Ohio Heart Center for medical malpractice; a jury awarded the Bolens $514,682.68. The trial court later capped non‑economic damages under R.C. 2323.43 and denied the Bolens’ motion for prejudgment interest without an evidentiary hearing.
- Defendants (Mohan and NOHC) challenged (1) the competency of the Bolens’ expert (Dr. Diaco), (2) adequacy of Dr. Diaco’s causation opinion, and (3) admissibility of medical bills tied to causation. They moved for directed verdict and JNOV; the trial court denied relief and the jury verdict stood.
- On appeal, the Ninth District considered whether defendants forfeited competency objections by failing to object at trial, whether Dr. Diaco’s testimony provided causation to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, and whether admission of medical bills was proper. The court also reviewed the trial court’s summary denial of prejudgment interest.
- The court affirmed the judgment in part (overruling defendants’ three assignments of error) but reversed in part and remanded solely on the prejudgment interest issue because the trial court failed to set a date certain for an evidentiary hearing under R.C. 1343.03(C).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Competency of expert under Evid.R. 601(D) | Bolens: Dr. Diaco is qualified and testified he spends ≥50% of his time in active clinical/interventional cardiology. | Mohan/NOHC: Diaco was not competent (did not show ≥50% clinical practice) and should not have testified; directed verdict/JNOV required. | Court: Defendants forfeited the competency challenge by failing to object or move to strike at trial; assignment overruled. |
| Causation opinion sufficiency | Bolens: Dr. Diaco testified to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the lodged stent caused the need for open‑heart surgery. | Mohan/NOHC: Diaco never opined to reasonable medical certainty that Mohan’s negligence proximately caused the bypass. | Court: Dr. Diaco’s testimony provided sufficient causation (probability >50%); assignment overruled. |
| Admissibility of medical bills | Bolens: Medical records/bills should be admitted because expert testimony tied bypass to lodged stent. | Mohan/NOHC: Bills improperly admitted absent expert linking treatment to defendant’s negligence. | Court: Trial court did not abuse discretion; Diaco’s testimony supported causal link and records were admissible. |
| Prejudgment interest hearing requirement | Bolens: Trial court erred by denying prejudgment interest without an evidentiary hearing or setting a date certain. | Mohan/NOHC: Opposed award; court may decide on briefs. | Court: Reversed on this point — trial court abused discretion by ruling without setting a date certain for hearing per R.C. 1343.03(C) and Pruszynski. Remanded for hearing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Celmer v. Rodgers, 114 Ohio St.3d 221 (2007) (Evid.R. 601(D) purpose: prevent professional‑witness physicians from testifying about clinical liability when they do not devote substantial time to clinical practice)
- Bruni v. Tatsumi, 46 Ohio St.2d 127 (1976) (elements of medical malpractice require expert proof of standard of care and causation)
- Stinson v. England, 69 Ohio St.3d 451 (1994) (medical causation requires probability—greater than fifty percent—to establish causation)
- Moskovitz v. Mt. Sinai Med. Ctr., 69 Ohio St.3d 638 (1994) (trial court must make findings on good‑faith settlement efforts to award prejudgment interest under R.C. 1343.03(C))
- Pruszynski v. Reeves, 117 Ohio St.3d 92 (2008) (trial court must set a date certain for evidentiary hearing on prejudgment interest; court may choose nature of hearing)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse of discretion standard defined)
- Darnell v. Eastman, 23 Ohio St.2d 13 (1970) (causal connection between injury and disability requires competent medical opinion except when issue is within common knowledge)