Greene v. Durrani, 2023 Ohio 3069

Plaintiff Gloria Greene (66, morbidly obese, diabetic) underwent L4–L5 fusion by Dr. Abubakar Durrani in Dec. 2012 and thereafter developed a post‑op infection and an alleged permanent right femoral nerve injury causing chronic weakness and mobility aids.
Greene sued Durrani and CAST for medical negligence and other claims; suit refiled after dismissal and tried to a jury in Jan. 2020.
Jury found Durrani negligent and awarded economic and non‑economic damages (later reduced by the trial court and offset for prior settlements); prejudgment interest was also awarded.
At trial the plaintiff played a multi‑excerpt deposition “collage,” repeatedly referenced Durrani’s prior medical license revocations, and counsel commented on Durrani’s absence; the trial court also gave a broad jury instruction about his absence.
The appellate court found multiple trial evidentiary and instruction errors (license‑revocation references, parts of the collage, and the absence instruction), concluded they were not harmless in this closely contested case, reversed, and remanded for a new trial; it upheld admission of Dr. Saini’s testimony and deemed damages issues moot on remand.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admission of deposition “collage” excerpts	Collage was probative of credibility and facts	Collage was irrelevant, prejudicial, and violated evidentiary rules	Trial court abused discretion in admitting collage; error not harmless — new trial ordered
Evidence of Durrani’s medical‑license revocations	Permissible background for credibility/notice	Revocation evidence was highly prejudicial and not probative of truthfulness	Admission was error; because references were extensive the error was not harmless — new trial ordered
Jury instruction allowing inference from Durrani’s absence	Comments/absence evidence bear on defense presentation	Instruction permitted impermissible adverse inference	Identical instruction previously held overbroad; court found abuse of discretion — new trial ordered
Admissibility of Dr. Saini’s testimony	Saini’s opinions are relevant to negligence/loss	Defendants moved in limine to exclude him	Court did not abuse discretion in admitting Saini; motion denied and ruling affirmed
Damages rulings (catastrophic injury, future damages, prejudgment interest, set‑off)	Greene sought awards and interest; opposed set‑off arguments	Defendants challenged awards and offsets	Decision on damages rendered moot by reversal of liability and remand; appellate court did not rule on merits

Adams v. Durrani, 183 N.E.3d 560 (Ohio 2022) (standards for new trial and scope of admissible expert testimony)
Setters v. Durrani, 164 N.E.3d 1159 (Ohio 2020) (admission of Durrani’s license revocations prejudicial under Evid.R. 403)
Beard v. Meridia Huron Hosp., 834 N.E.2d 323 (Ohio 2005) (improper evidentiary ruling reversible only if substantial rights affected)
O’Brien v. Angley, 407 N.E.2d 490 (Ohio 1980) (weighing prejudicial effect and whether the trier would reach same result)
Pierce v. Durrani, 35 N.E.3d 594 (Ohio 2015) (limits on permissible comments about a defendant’s absence)
Johnson v. Abdullah, 187 N.E.3d 463 (Ohio 2021) (definition and scope of abuse of discretion)
Kreller Group, Inc. v. WFS Fin., Inc., 798 N.E.2d 1179 (Ohio 2003) (appellate review of trial‑court discretionary rulings)