Parrish v. Jones
3 N.E.3d 155
Ohio2013Background
- Parrish, administrator of Karen Parrish’s estate, filed wrongful-death and survival actions in Ross County arising from Karen’s allegedly negligent care and death on 12/30/2004.
- Karen was treated at Adena Regional Medical Center under Dr. Jones, then transferred to a rehab center where Dr. Skocik provided care.
- Plaintiff alleged negligent treatment, including failure to prescribe anticoagulation, and failure to treat, diagnose, monitor, or respond timely, leading to Karen’s death from pulmonary emboli after cardiopulmonary arrest.
- Initially named defendants included Dr. Jones, Adena Regional Medical Center, Chillicothe Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, L.L.C., and several Does; Skocik and Family Medicine of Chillicothe, Inc. were added in 2006.
- At trial in 2011, Skocik moved for a directed verdict after Parrish’s opening statement, arguing Parrish failed to establish a standard of care, deviation, and causation against Skocik.
- The trial court granted the directed verdict in favor of Skocik; the jury later returned a verdict for Dr. Jones and against Parrish on the remaining defendants, leading to an appeal and certification of conflict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether pleadings must be considered with opening statement for Civ.R.50(A) ruling | Parrish argues pleadings should be consulted and considered | Skocik argues pleadings are not to be considered | Not required to consider pleadings, but permissible to consult pleadings in liberally construing the opening |
| What standard governs directed verdict after opening statement | Parrish contends standard allows liberal construction of opening and pleadings | Skocik contends standard should be strict or defer to lack of prima facie case | Directed verdict after opening only when the opening shows inability to sustain the claim; liberal construction and pleadings may be consulted |
| Role of Brinkmoeller and liberal construction in opening statements | Brinkmoeller requires liberal construction to avoid premature verdict | Skocik argues cautious approach not to rely on pleadings | Brinkmoeller framework applies; courts may consult pleadings but must liberal-construct opening to favor opponent |
Key Cases Cited
- Brinkmoeller v. Wilson, 41 Ohio St.2d 223 (Ohio 1975) (directed verdicts after opening statement require liberal construction and caution)
- Bruni v. Tatsumi, 46 Ohio St.2d 127 (Ohio 1976) (established standard for deviation from standard of care and causation in malpractice)
- United States Aviation Underwriters, Inc. v. B.F. Goodrich Co., 149 Ohio App.3d 569 (9th Dist. 2002) (example of directed verdict decision after opening statement)