Moretz v. Muakkassa
137 Ohio St. 3d 171
Ohio2013Background
- Muakkassa, M.D. appealed a jury verdict against him in a medical malpractice case brought by Moretz and Moretz, alleging negligence in removing an anterior sacral meningocele.
- Surgery involved a general surgeon’s laparoscopic approach with Muakkassa present but not scrubbed in; the cyst was later identified as neurenteric, not a meningocele.
- A key evidentiary dispute concerned the admissibility of a learned-treatise illustration (Exhibit 36) and the sufficiency of expert testimony for write-offs as reasonable medical value.
- The trial court admitted a videotaped deposition despite Civ.R. 32(A)’s timing requirement and excused the delay as harmless; the appellate court affirmed, later reversing parts of the trial court’s rulings.
- Muakkassa challenged four appellate issues: late deposition filing, admission of the treatise illustration, a proposed jury interrogatory, and the exclusion of write-offs without expert testimony; the Supreme Court granted review to reassess these rulings.
- On remand, the Supreme Court held the late deposition error harmless but found the illustration admissibility, interrogatory denial, and write-off exclusion reversible, remanding for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Civ.R. 32(A) deposition timing | Late filing was harmless; good cause shown | Strict compliance required; prejudice possible | Harmless error; late filing excused |
| Admission of medical illustration from treatise | Illustration authenticated; aids expert testimony | Illustration is hearsay under Evid.R. 803(18) | Abuse of discretion; illustration not admissible as exhibit under Evid.R. 803(18) |
| Interrogatory about specific negligence | Interrogatory properly drafted to specify acts of negligence | All allegations collapsed into a single failure to scrub in | Trial court abused discretion; proper interrogatory required |
| Evidence of write-offs as reasonable value without expert | Write-offs are prima facie evidence of value under R.C. 2317.421 | Foundation needed via expert testimony | Requires remittitur; write-offs admissible without expert testimony on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Robinson v. Bates, 112 Ohio St.3d 17 (2006-Ohio-6362) (R.C. 2317.421 makes bills prima facie evidence of reasonableness; collateral-source rule limits about write-offs)
- Jaques v. Manton, 125 Ohio St.3d 342 (2010-Ohio-1838) (Interprets write-offs under R.C. 2317.421; confirms write-offs as evidence of value)
- Freeman v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 69 Ohio St.3d 611 (1994) (Interrogatories testing ultimate issues; Civ.R. 49(B) duty to submit proper interrogatories)
- De Tunno v. Shull, 166 Ohio St. 365 (1957) (Ceremonial requirement for expert testimony; context for reasonableness of charges)