Hayward v. Summa Health System/Akron City Hospital, 139 Ohio St. 3d 238

Discretionary appeal from the Ninth District on whether remote-cause jury instruction in a med-mal case was prejudicial.
Plaintiff Hayward alleged femoral-nerve injury from Bookwalter retractor during surgery by Cullado and Wanek.
Experts disagreed whether retractor caused the injury and whether standard of care was breached.
Trial court gave a remote-cause instruction; objections were raised but not preserved.
Jury interrogatories and verdict forms were later completed with defenses finding no negligence.
Court of Appeals reversed for new trial on prejudicial error; Supreme Court reverses on prejudice finding and remands for moot-assignments consideration.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the remote-cause instruction was prejudicial.	Hayward	Cullado/Wanek	No reversible prejudice; instruction not shown to affect substantial rights.

Hampel v. Food Ingredients Specialties, Inc., 89 Ohio St.3d 169 (Ohio Supreme Court 2000) (prejudice requires clear, substantial impact on verdict)
Becker v. BancOhio Natl. Bank, 17 Ohio St.3d 158 (Ohio Supreme Court 1985) (interrogatories used to test general verdict consistency)
Sech v. Rogers, 6 Ohio St.3d 462 (Ohio Supreme Court 1983) (instruction considered in context of entire charge)
Makranczy v. Gelfand, 109 Ohio St. 325 (Ohio Supreme Court 1924) (standard for substantial justice review in trial record)
Wagner v. Roche Laboratories, 85 Ohio St.3d 457 (Ohio Supreme Court 1999) (prejudice degree and need for thorough transcript review)
Cleveland Elec. Illum. Co. v. Astorhurst Land Co., 18 Ohio St.3d 268 (Ohio Supreme Court 1985) (instruction must be prejudicial to warrant reversal)
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 95 Ohio St.3d 512 (Ohio Supreme Court 2002) (de novo review on question of law)