2020 Ohio 1137
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Plaintiff William Jenkins was a resident at Villa Angela Care Center (Karl HC) and treated by Dr. Thomas McEldowney; he had lower-extremity wounds treated outside the facility in Dec. 2014 and then returned to Villa Angela.
- Jenkins alleged Villa Angela and Dr. McEldowney failed to follow wound-care orders from his outside podiatrist (Dr. Cozzolino), causing wound deterioration and eventual leg amputation.
- Jenkins filed a medical-malpractice complaint and submitted an affidavit of merit; during discovery his treating podiatrist (Dr. Cozzolino) testified he could not causally link Villa Angela’s care to the amputation.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing Jenkins had no expert evidence to establish breach or proximate cause; Jenkins opposed, claiming ordinary negligence and invoking the common-knowledge exception, and submitted his own affidavit.
- The trial court granted summary judgment, finding the claim was medical malpractice requiring expert proof and that Jenkins offered no admissible contrary expert evidence; Jenkins appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether expert testimony was required to defeat summary judgment on Jenkins' claim | Jenkins: claim is ordinary negligence or fits common-knowledge exception so no expert required | Defendants: claim is medical malpractice; expert proof is required and defendants' expert showed lack of causation | Held: Claim is medical malpractice; common-knowledge exception does not apply; expert testimony required and Jenkins presented none, so summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Coventry Twp. v. Ecker, 101 Ohio App.3d 38 (1995) (appellate review of summary judgment is de novo)
- Koos v. Cent. Ohio Cellular, Inc., 94 Ohio App.3d 579 (1995) (summary judgment legal standards explained)
- State ex rel. Grady v. State Emp. Relations Bd., 78 Ohio St.3d 181 (1997) (summary-judgment standard under Civ.R. 56)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (1996) (moving party’s initial burden under Civ.R. 56 and requirements to point to evidentiary materials)
- Vahila v. Hall, 77 Ohio St.3d 421 (1997) (nonmoving party must present specific facts in response to summary judgment)
- Bruni v. Tatsumi, 46 Ohio St.2d 127 (1976) (common-knowledge exception to expert testimony in medical-malpractice cases)
- Buerger v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 64 Ohio App.3d 394 (1989) (limits on common-knowledge exception; typically for gross inattention or miscommunication)
- Wright v. Hamilton, 141 Ohio App.3d 296 (2001) (expert testimony required where matters involve professional skill and judgment)