Miller v. Andrews
2013 Ohio 2490
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Miller was admitted to MedCentral on Dec 17, 2008 with acute bilateral pulmonary emboli and DVTs; Heparin caused HIT concerns and she was switched to Lovenox, then discharge on Coumadin.
- Upon discharge, Miller’s INR remained subtherapeutic and she was transferred Jan 8, 2009 to Winchester Terrace for rehab and INR monitoring; discharge papers noted HIT and DVT, and Miller was on Coumadin at admission.
- On Jan 22, 2009 Miller developed left leg ischemia leading to amputation; nursing documentation failed to note progressive symptoms, and Dr. Andrews ordered treatment for a DVT/ischemia but was not on site for initial assessment.
- Miller filed a professional negligence action on Jan 22, 2010, trial held April 5–13, 2012, resulting in a verdict finding no negligence by Dr. Andrews or American Health Network; Miller sought sanctions for discovery conduct against defense deposition of Dr. Lee.
- The trial court awarded sanctions to Miller for Dr. Lee’s deposition; on cross-appeal, the sanction award was reversed for noncompliance with R.C. 2323.51, and the appellate court affirmed the general verdict while sustaining the cross-appeal on sanctions.
- The Fifth District ultimately affirmed the judgment on the merits, reversed the sanctions ruling on R.C. 2323.51 grounds, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with that statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hindsight instruction sufficiency | Miller contends the hindsight instruction was improper. | Andrews argues the instruction was fair under case law. | No abuse of discretion; instruction fair and properly framed. |
| Interrogatories clarity | Interrogatories were confusing and nonstandard. | Interrogatories adequately instructed the jury under Civ. R. 49(B). | No reversible error; interrogatories proper when viewed with instructions. |
| Different methods instruction | Instruction allowed comparison to other methods implying negligence. | Instruction supported by evidence showing alternative methods could be appropriate. | Not an abuse of discretion; instruction warranted by record. |
| Remote-cause instruction | Remote-cause language was flawed or nonsensical. | Language harmless given verdict on standard of care. | Harmless error; not prejudicial. |
| Sanctions—R.C. 2323.51 compliance | Sanctions awarded for frivolous conduct were appropriate. | Trial court failed to comply with statutory procedures. | Sanctions reversed and remanded for proper proceedings under R.C. 2323.51. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pallini v. Dankowski, 17 Ohio St.2d 51 (Ohio 1969) (duty to instruct the jury on applicable law; clear charge requires correct law)
- Marshall v. Gibson, 19 Ohio St.3d 10 (Ohio 1985) (jury instructions must be correct and unambiguous)
- Murphy v. Carrollton Mfg. Co., 61 Ohio St.3d 585 (Ohio 1991) (instructions must be complete and properly state law)
- Groob v. Keybank, 843 N.E.2d 1170 (Ohio Supreme Court 2006) (abuse-of-discretion review of jury instructions; de novo standard for law)
- State v. Martens, 90 Ohio App.3d 338 (Ohio App.3d 1993) (review of jury instructions as a whole)
- Thompson v. Capaldo, 2008-Ohio-6329 (Ohio 5th Dist.) (hindsight instruction approved when consistent with evidence)
- Bruni v. Tatsumi, 46 Ohio St.2d 127 (Ohio 1976) (foreseeability/standard of care in medical negligence)
- Clements v. Lima Memorial Hosp., 2010-Ohio-602 (Ohio 3rd Dist.) (foresight not hindsight; foreseeability test forward-looking)