Groves v. Ihsanullah
2016 Ohio 7703
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Decedent Benjamin Cannon, 21, presented to Marymount ER lethargic on May 12, 2011; family reported possible overuse of prescribed pain medication (including methadone). CT brain was ordered for altered awareness; ER impression was narcotic side effect and patient was discharged after improvement with IV fluids and Zofran.
- Cannon was found dead at home later that night; cause of death: acute bronchial pneumonia caused by acute methadone intoxication.
- Plaintiff Groves (administrator) sued for wrongful death/medical malpractice, alleging defendants failed to diagnose/treat methadone overdose and should have observed Cannon for 24 hours.
- Pretrial, Groves obtained limine rulings excluding evidence of prior ER visits and excluding certain expert testimony from toxicologist William Hearn regarding drug abuse/drug‑seeking behavior.
- At trial Groves questioned Hearn about the basis for his opinions; Hearn said he relied on Kaiser records showing repeated narcotic refill requests. The court overruled objections and allowed the questioning, but later (near closing) gave a jury instruction—prepared by defense counsel—stating plaintiff’s attorney violated a court order and permitting the jury to infer the prior records would have been adverse and shown drug‑seeking.
- Groves moved for a new trial arguing irregularity and sanctioning deprived her of a fair trial; the trial court denied the motion. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding the curative instruction and sanction an abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by sanctioning plaintiff’s counsel and giving a curative instruction that jurors may infer plaintiff hid adverse prior records | Groves: limine rulings are interlocutory; once trial court overruled objections and allowed questioning, counsel did not violate an order; curative instruction wrongly prejudiced jury | Defendants: limine rulings barred the evidence; plaintiff’s questioning violated those orders and prejudiced defendants, justifying sanction and instruction | Court held the limine rulings were preliminary; because defendants had opportunity to proffer or seek reconsideration and the court itself allowed the questioning, the curative instruction accusing counsel of violating an order and permitting juror inference was improper and an abuse of discretion; new trial required |
| Whether the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence | Groves: erroneous curative instruction and sanctions deprived her of a fair trial and affected verdict | Defendants: evidence supported verdict; any error was invited or harmless | Court found the sanction error dispositive and reversed on that ground; did not decide manifest‑weight issue (moot) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. French, 72 Ohio St.3d 446 (1995) (motion in limine rulings are interlocutory and may be revisited at trial)
- State v. Maurer, 15 Ohio St.3d 239 (1984) (motions in limine are preliminary; proffer may be required at trial)
- State v. Grubb, 28 Ohio St.3d 199 (1986) (preliminary nature of limine rulings and trial court discretion)
- Defiance v. Kretz, 60 Ohio St.3d 1 (1991) (finality does not attach to granted limine motions; trial context controls admissibility)
- Collins v. Storer Communications, Inc., 65 Ohio App.3d 443 (1989) (party restricted by limine must proffer evidence at trial to preserve admissibility ruling)
- Quellos v. Quellos, 96 Ohio App.3d 31 (1994) (discussing curative instruction and disregard remedies for limine violations)