Grieser v. Janis
100 N.E.3d 1176
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Timothy Grieser, an active 33-year-old, had longstanding talar OCD lesions and underwent multiple ankle surgeries, culminating in a total ankle replacement by Dr. Leonard Janis using a Salto Talaris prosthesis in 2009.
- Postoperative pain and stiffness persisted; Timothy later underwent a revision total ankle replacement by Dr. Gregory Berlet using an INBONE prosthesis and experienced improved pain and function.
- Appellants (Timothy and his wife Meredith) sued Janis and his practice for medical negligence, lack of informed consent, and loss of consortium; a jury awarded plaintiffs $150,000 total.
- Defendants moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV); the trial court granted JNOV, concluding plaintiffs failed to produce required expert proof of standard of care and causation.
- Plaintiffs appealed, arguing the trial court erred in overturning the jury verdict. The appellate court considered whether plaintiffs presented sufficient expert testimony on (1) the applicable standard of care for total ankle replacement placement and (2) proximate cause linking any breach to Timothy’s postoperative harm.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the jury verdict finding negligence (malplacement of ankle prosthesis) was supported by expert proof of the applicable standard of care | Plaintiffs argued treating physician Dr. Berlet’s testimony (including notes saying the replacement was “not the standard of care” for a 33‑year‑old) provided sufficient expert proof of the standard and breach | Defendants argued plaintiffs failed to present admissible expert testimony that established the recognized orthopedic standard of care or that Janis breached it; Berlet disavowed offering standard‑of‑care opinions at trial | Held: Judgment for defendants affirmed; plaintiffs failed to present expert testimony establishing the standard of care or a deviation by Janis (Berlet did not offer a binding standard‑of‑care opinion and recanted on cross) |
| Whether plaintiffs proved proximate causation by expert testimony | Plaintiffs relied on Berlet’s observations that the prosthesis was malpositioned and Timothy had mechanical pain after Janis’s surgery | Defendants pointed to their expert (Dr. Conti), who testified that the prosthesis placement and postoperative findings did not show a mechanically blocked or improperly positioned joint and that pain can persist despite proper placement; plaintiffs submitted no expert linking breach to injury by a more‑likely‑than‑not standard | Held: Plaintiffs failed to meet requirement to prove causation by medical expert testimony; JNOV properly granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Bruni v. Tatsumi, 46 Ohio St.2d 127 (Ohio 1976) (establishes requirement that medical negligence be proven by expert testimony defining standard of care and breach)
- Posin v. A.B.C. Motor Court Hotel, Inc., 45 Ohio St.2d 271 (Ohio 1976) (directed verdict/JNOV standard; weight and credibility of evidence are for the jury)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (Ohio 2012) (standard for reviewing directed‑verdict/JNOV motions; evidence must be construed in favor of nonmoving party)
- Ramage v. Central Ohio Emergency Serv., Inc., 64 Ohio St.3d 97 (Ohio 1992) (reiterates that medical malpractice requires expert proof of prevailing standards)
- Estate of Hall v. Akron Gen. Med. Ctr., 125 Ohio St.3d 300 (Ohio 2010) (explains rationale for expert requirement in medical malpractice cases)
- Reeves v. Healy, 192 Ohio App.3d 769 (Ohio Ct. App.) (discusses use and purpose of jury interrogatories and necessity of expert proof in malpractice)