Cromer v. Children's Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Akron
64 N.E.3d 1018
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Five-year-old Seth Cromer presented to Children’s Hospital Akron ED in shock and was to receive normal saline; a nurse administered D5½ normal saline by mistake. The ED physician corrected the IV fluid and other interventions followed, but Seth later arrested and died. Autopsy showed left coronary artery narrowing plus viral myocarditis; experts disputed whether death was from a preexisting heart defect or from inadequate treatment of septic shock.
- Plaintiffs (Melinda and Roderick Cromer) sued the hospital for medical malpractice alleging breaches including wrong IV fluid, delayed fluids/assessment, and delayed intubation; individual defendants were dismissed, leaving the hospital as defendant.
- At trial the jury returned a general verdict for the hospital and answered special interrogatories finding no negligence; the jury nonetheless answered a causation interrogatory (after being instructed not to) but that answer was later held moot by the Ohio Supreme Court because the jury found no negligence.
- This Court originally reversed for an erroneous jury instruction; the Ohio Supreme Court reversed that reversal (no material prejudice shown) and remanded for this Court to decide the remaining assignments of error (manifest weight/new trial issues).
- On remand this Court confined review to whether the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence regarding breach of the standard of care, focusing on undisputed expert testimony that administering the wrong IV fluid was a departure from the standard of care.
- The majority concluded the jury lost its way because the expert testimony that the nurse’s administration of the wrong fluid breached the standard of care was credible and uncontradicted; therefore the verdict was against the manifest weight and the case was reversed and remanded for a new trial. Judge Hensal dissented, arguing the verdict must be assessed as a whole and the evidence on causation and other breaches remained disputed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the jury verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence (breach element) | Cromer: undisputed expert testimony shows nurse breached standard of care by giving wrong IV fluid, so jury lost its way in finding no negligence | Hospital: substantial evidence supported that there was no breach or that disputed facts permitted the jury to find no breach; verdict should be reviewed as a whole | Majority: Sustained — jury lost its way because credible, uncontradicted expert testimony established breach, requiring new trial |
| Whether the trial court erred in denying a new trial based on inconsistent interrogatories | Cromer: interrogatories were inconsistent and/or verdict was against weight of evidence, warranting new trial | Hospital: jury’s general verdict and interrogatory answers were consistent and no plain error shown | Majority: Sustained insofar as related to manifest weight; remanded for new trial; dissent would have overruled |
| Scope of appellate review when special interrogatories are used | Cromer: review should focus on determinative issues the jury answered (negligence) | Hospital: review may consider verdict as whole including causation and damages | Court: Where interrogatories resolve determinative issues, review is confined to those issues the jury answered (here negligence) |
| Whether the jury may disregard uncontradicted expert testimony | Cromer: jury cannot ignore credible, uncontradicted expert opinion establishing breach | Hospital: jury room credibility determinations permit rejecting testimony when other evidence exists | Court: Jury may not disregard uncontradicted expert testimony without reason; here no contradictory evidence undermined expert opinion |
Key Cases Cited
- C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr. Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279 (civil manifest weight standard precedent)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Thompkins) (standard for manifest weight review applied in civil cases)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (clarifies manifest weight standard and its civil application)
- Cincinnati Riverfront Coliseum, Inc. v. McNulty, Co., 28 Ohio St.3d 333 (use of special interrogatories to test a general verdict)
- Miller v. McAllister, 169 Ohio St. 487 (definition of determinative issues for interrogatories)