Braxton v. Kilbane
2017 Ohio 185
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Julius Braxton sued defendant Ashley Kilbane for negligence after a July 10, 2013 motor-vehicle collision; the case was tried to a jury in Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas.
- Plaintiff’s retained expert, Dr. Mark Shoag, submitted a January 27, 2015 expert report opining the accident caused Braxton’s left wrist injury.
- An MRI of Braxton’s left wrist was performed in April 2015 and showed additional injuries (radial fracture, ligament and cartilage tears) beyond the ulnar styloid fracture seen on X‑ray.
- Defense objected at trial to allowing Dr. Shoag to testify about the MRI, invoking Loc.R. 21.1 and Civ.R. 26(E); the trial court limited Dr. Shoag’s testimony to materials relied on in his January 2015 report and excluded testimony about the MRI and use of Braxton’s wrist as demonstrative evidence.
- The jury returned a verdict for Braxton and awarded $12,600; on appeal Braxton challenged exclusion of the MRI-related expert testimony and the demonstrative use of his wrist.
- The court of appeals (majority) held the trial court abused its discretion in excluding the MRI-related testimony and the demonstrative evidence, found prejudice as to damages, affirmed liability verdict, vacated the damages award, and remanded for a new trial on damages; one judge dissented.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by excluding Dr. Shoag’s testimony about the April 2015 MRI | Shoag’s report disclosed the subject matter (causation) and the MRI only detailed the same injury; MRI testimony was proper and not a new subject | MRI disclosed new evidence of the extent of injury and was not included in the expert report or timely supplemented, prejudicing defense | Majority: Exclusion was an abuse of discretion; MRI testimony should have been admitted; verdict affirmed but damages vacated and remanded. Dissent: Trial court acted within discretion under Loc.R. 21.1 to exclude undisclosed MRI opinions. |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by precluding demonstrative use of plaintiff’s wrist during Shoag’s testimony | Using the wrist as demonstrative evidence was relevant and substantially similar to the injury depiction; exclusion hindered jury's assessment of damages | Demonstrative use would have expanded testimony beyond the expert report and compounded prejudice from late disclosure | Majority: Exclusion was an abuse of discretion and prejudicial to damages determination; remand for damages only. Dissent: If MRI testimony was properly excluded, demonstrative evidence likewise was properly excluded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Krischbaum v. Dillon, 58 Ohio St.3d 58 (expert-admission rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- State v. Jones, 135 Ohio St.3d 10 (2012) (demonstrative-evidence admissibility tied to relevance and substantial similarity)
- Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Tomchik, 134 Ohio App.3d 765 (expert disclosure need not include detailed bases for opinion)
- Revilo Tyluka, L.L.C. v. Simon Roofing & Sheet Metal Corp., 193 Ohio App.3d 535 (2011) (primary purpose of Loc.R. 21 to avoid prejudicial surprise)
- Shumaker v. Oliver B. Cannon & Sons, Inc., 28 Ohio St.3d 367 (medical experts may not testify to previously undisclosed causal connections)
- Nakoff v. Fairview Gen. Hosp., 75 Ohio St.3d 254 (standard of review for Loc.R. 21.1/expert report issues is abuse of discretion)