Hayes v. Durrani, 2021 Ohio 725

William Hayes experienced chronic lower-back pain and underwent two spinal surgeries by Dr. Abubakar Durrani in June and December 2012; he died about four months after the second surgery while on chemotherapy for multiple myeloma.
Douglas Hayes, as administrator of William’s estate, sued Dr. Durrani and the Center for Advanced Spine Technologies (CAST) for malpractice and related torts (negligence, battery, lack of informed consent, intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraud; vicarious/negligent supervision claims against CAST).
Dr. Durrani fled the country (to Pakistan) before trial; the trial court excluded evidence and denied a jury instruction concerning his flight and prohibited questioning experts about post-treatment activities.
The jury found Durrani negligent (e.g., failure to address an L1 compression fracture and documentation issues) but answered that his negligence was not the proximate cause of William’s harm; the jury found for defendants on informed-consent, battery, and fraud claims.
The trial court entered judgment for Durrani and CAST; Douglas Hayes appealed, arguing the court erred by refusing the flight instruction and by blocking cross-examination of defendants’ experts about Durrani’s flight.
The appellate court reviewed the denial of the instruction and exclusion of evidence for abuse of discretion and affirmed, holding any error would have been harmless given the jury’s proximate-cause finding.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether court erred by refusing a jury instruction that Durrani’s flight indicates consciousness of guilt/liability	Hayes: flight is probative of consciousness of responsibility and should be submitted to jury	Durrani/CAST: flight’s motive speculative; could relate to criminal charges, not civil liability; not probative	Court: no abuse of discretion in refusing instruction; speculative and not probative; harmless if error
Whether court erred by prohibiting cross-examination of defense experts about Durrani’s flight under Evid.R. 806	Hayes: may use flight to attack credibility of Durrani and his medical records admitted as hearsay	Durrani/CAST: post-treatment activities not relevant; pretrial order properly limited scope	Court: exclusion not an abuse of discretion; even if error, no material prejudice given jury’s findings

State v. Lavender, 141 N.E.3d 1000 (1st Dist. 2019) (appellate review of evidentiary rulings is for abuse of discretion and reversal requires showing of material prejudice)