2019 Ohio 347
Oh. Ct. App. 8th Dist. Cuyahog...2019Background
- Plaintiff Madora Jones (administrator of decedent ReDon Jones) sued the Cleveland Clinic Foundation and related defendants for wrongful death/medical malpractice after ReDon had chest pain, underwent ED evaluation and later a stress echo target-rate protocol, and died of a myocardial infarction days after discharge.
- Trial occurred October 30–November 3, 2017; jury deliberations began Friday morning and extended into late evening with multiple jury notes indicating a 4–4 or 50/50 deadlock.
- One juror was excused for a family emergency and replaced with an alternate over defendants’ objection; after being told they could return Monday, the jury reached a verdict ~15 minutes later and returned a 6–2 verdict for defendants.
- Plaintiff moved for a mistrial (treated as a Civ.R. 59 new-trial motion); a juror later submitted a letter saying she and another juror changed their votes late Friday merely to finish and go home.
- Plaintiff also sought to read a Civ.R. 30(B)(5) designee’s deposition about the Clinic’s stress-test protocol (85% target rate and whether a test is ‘diagnostic’); the trial court limited that testimony.
- The trial court denied the new-trial motion and limited the 30(B)(5) testimony; the appellate court reversed as to the mistrial/new-trial denial and the Rule 30(B)(5) limitation and remanded for further proceedings and for the trial court to rule on outstanding discovery motions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court should grant a mistrial/new trial because jurors were coerced into a verdict to avoid further deliberations | Jones argued jurors abandoned honest convictions and voted to finish rather than deliberate further; verdict was coerced and unjust | Clinic argued parties and court agreed to continue deliberations, plaintiff previously objected to sending jurors home, and no proof verdict was coerced | Court held trial court abused discretion in denying motion for new trial: multiple deadlock communications, juror letter shows vote change to stop deliberating, verdict unreliable — reversed and remanded |
| Whether the trial court erred by not sua sponte discharging the jury when deadlocked | Jones contended judge should have declared mistrial sua sponte after deadlock communications | Clinic relied on judge’s discretion to continue deliberations and on differences from cases where discharge was required | Court distinguished prior authority but found denial of new trial was error under the totality of facts; not all forms of sua sponte discharge required here but relief granted based on abuse of discretion |
| Whether the court erred in failing to give a Howard (deadlock) charge | Jones argued a Howard instruction should have been given after repeated deadlock notes | Clinic argued no request/objection by plaintiff and the court reasonably managed deliberations | Court found omission of a Howard charge after the third and fourth deadlock communications was plain error (appellant forfeited plain-error review but standard satisfied) |
| Whether the trial court erred in limiting testimony from the Civ.R. 30(B)(5) designee about the Clinic’s stress-test protocol | Jones argued the 30(B)(5) designee could testify about the Clinic’s internal standard that 85% is the diagnostic target and that below 85% is non‑diagnostic | Clinic argued any testimony beyond stating the numeric target would be expert medical opinion under Evid.R. 702 and properly excluded | Court held limiting the designee from testifying about the Clinic’s internal rule (85% target and non/diagnostic classification) was an abuse of discretion — that factual/organizational-standard testimony fits within Civ.R. 30(B)(5) scope |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Sabbah, 13 Ohio App.3d 124 (6th Dist.) (jury note showing even split, claimed insufficient evidence, and statement verdict would be unfair required mistrial/discharge)
- State v. Howard, 42 Ohio St.3d 18 (Ohio 1989) (Howard charge language and guidance on prodding deadlocked juries)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse-of-discretion standard explained)
- Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 (Ohio 1997) (plain-error standard in civil cases)
- State v. Morgan, 153 Ohio St.3d 196 (Ohio 2017) (civil plain-error framework reiterated)
- State v. Hessler, 90 Ohio St.3d 108 (Ohio 2000) (aliunde rule and Evid.R. 606(B) precluding juror testimony to impeach verdict)