Clark v. Grant Med. Ctr.
2015 Ohio 4958
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Catherine Clark (patient) with long‑standing rheumatoid arthritis underwent attempted general anesthesia for elective hip replacement on Oct. 29, 2010; multiple intubation attempts by CRNA Tierney and anesthesiologist Dr. John Blair failed and Clark was awakened. Two days later a CT showed a perforation of the right pyriform sinus requiring emergency repair and prolonged hospitalization.
- Plaintiffs sued Grant Anesthesia Services and Dr. Blair for medical malpractice, negligence, and loss of consortium; jury trial resulted in a $500,000 verdict for the Clarks (Feb. 2014).
- Plaintiffs moved for prejudgment interest under R.C. 1343.03(C); after a hearing the trial court granted renewed motion and awarded prejudgment interest of $56,551 as of Feb. 1, 2014.
- Defendants appealed, raising three assignments of error: (1) form of jury interrogatories (plaintiffs’ yes/no interrogatories vs. defendants’ requested narrative interrogatory); (2) trial court’s refusal to give the standard "bad result" jury instruction; and (3) the trial court’s award of prejudgment interest.
- The Tenth District affirmed: trial court did not abuse its discretion on interrogatories or instructions, and did not abuse discretion in finding defendants failed to make a good‑faith settlement effort and awarding prejudgment interest.
Issues
| Issue | Clark's Argument (Plaintiff) | Blair/Grant's Argument (Defendant) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Form of jury interrogatories (Civ.R. 49(B)) | Plaintiffs proposed specific yes/no interrogatories tied to discrete negligence theories; those tracked jury instructions and tested the verdict. | Defendants wanted a narrative interrogatory requiring the jury to "state the respect" of negligence; argued yes/no form was improper and could unduly influence jury. | Court: Yes/no interrogatories were permissible; trial court did not abuse discretion. Defendants failed to timely resubmit a corrected narrative form. |
| "Bad result" jury instruction (physician not guarantor of success) | Plaintiffs opposed the instruction because their expert testified the perforation itself was evidence of excessive force; the jury should weigh expert credibility. | Defendants sought the standard Ohio Jury Instruction to avoid verdict based on bad outcome alone. | Court: Refusal to give instruction was not an abuse of discretion under the specific evidence; jury was properly instructed on negligence and weighing expert testimony. |
| Prejudgment interest under R.C. 1343.03(C) | Plaintiffs argued defendants failed to make a good‑faith settlement effort given plaintiffs’ credible expert evidence and defendants’ refusal to make any offer or mediate in good faith. | Defendants argued they had an objectively reasonable belief of no liability (retained experts; defense perceived a strong chance of success), so no obligation to offer. | Court: Trial court did not abuse discretion—defendants did not rationally evaluate risks, declined mediation/offers despite credible plaintiff evidence, and never made a settlement offer; prejudgment interest properly awarded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Moretz v. Muakkassa, 137 Ohio St.3d 171 (Ohio 2013) (trial court must submit proper interrogatories and, when multiple negligence theories exist, defendant may obtain a jury narrative specifying negligence)
- Freeman v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 69 Ohio St.3d 611 (Ohio 1994) (Civ.R. 49 places burden on parties to propose proper interrogatories; trial court need not reformulate improper ones)
- Ramage v. Central Ohio Emergency Servs., Inc., 64 Ohio St.3d 97 (Ohio 1992) (trial court controls substance and form of interrogatories and may reject ambiguous or legally objectionable proposed questions)
- Cincinnati Riverfront Coliseum, Inc. v. McNulty Co., 28 Ohio St.3d 333 (Ohio 1986) (interrogatories should test correctness of the general verdict by eliciting determinative assessments)
- Bradley v. Mansfield Rapid Transit, Inc., 154 Ohio St. 154 (Ohio 1948) (proper interrogatories elicit facts from which negligence conclusions may be drawn)
- Kalain v. Smith, 25 Ohio St.3d 157 (Ohio 1986) (factors defining a party's good‑faith effort to settle under R.C. 1343.03(C))
- Galayda v. Lake Hosp. Sys., Inc., 71 Ohio St.3d 421 (Ohio 1994) (court may award prejudgment interest where defendant refuses settlement despite credible plaintiff evidence of negligence)
- Pruszynski v. Reeves, 117 Ohio St.3d 92 (Ohio 2008) (trial court may rely on its participation in pretrial/trial proceedings when deciding prejudgment interest)