Merlin v. Ankle & Foot Care Ctrs. of Ohio, 2017 Ohio 4388

Merlin sued Ankle & Foot Care Centers of Ohio and Dr. John E. Barrett for medical malpractice; jury trial proceeded before a magistrate in Mahoning County after parties consented under Civ.R. 53.
Six days before trial, defendants emailed a supplemental discovery packet increasing documents from 51 pages to 227 pages; Merlin's counsel admitted he received but did not review the supplement before trial.
Merlin used some of the newly produced documents during cross-examination on day one of trial and did not move for a continuance before or during the first day.
On day two, Merlin moved for a mistrial based on the late supplemental discovery; the magistrate denied the motion and the jury returned a verdict for defendants.
The trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision, denied Merlin’s objections, and entered judgment on the verdict; Merlin appealed solely arguing the denial of the mistrial was an abuse of discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a mistrial/new trial was required due to eleventh-hour supplemental discovery	Merlin: late production (227 pages, emailed 6 days pre-trial) was unfair surprise that prevented adequate preparation and warranted mistrial	Defendants: documents were produced before trial, counsel failed to review them or seek continuance; no prejudice warranting mistrial	Court: No abuse of discretion—no unfair surprise because counsel received the material, used some of it, did not seek continuance, and therefore invited the error

State ex rel. Bitter v. Missig, 72 Ohio St.3d 249 (1995) (invited-error doctrine bars a party from profiting from an error it induced)