Parrish v. Jones
2012 Ohio 1145
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Parrish, as administrator, sued Dr. Skocik, Family Medicine of Chillicothe, Dr. Jones, and others for medical negligence in Mrs. Parrish's treatment and wrongful death.
- Mrs. Parrish was diagnosed with Guillain-Barré Syndrome and treated with Lovenox to prevent clots; later discharged to a rehab facility where Lovenox was not continued.
- Mrs. Parrish died four days after arrival at the rehab center from a pulmonary embolism.
- At trial, Skocik and Family Medicine moved for a directed verdict after Parrish’s opening statement, which the trial court granted.
- Parrish then tried the case against Jones; the jury returned a verdict for Jones.
- Parrish appeals, arguing the directed verdict was improper, and that the trial court erred by not considering the complaint with the opening statement and by denying a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Directed verdict based on opening statement | Parrish argues opening statement sufficed to deliver a justiciable claim. | Skocik/Family Medicine argue directed verdict proper on opening statement alone. | Directed verdict reversed; trial court erred by not considering the complaint. |
| New trial denial harmonized with trial fairness | New trial necessary due to erroneous directed verdict against co-defendants affecting trial fairness. | Jones contends burden remained with Parrish; unfairness did not compel reversal. | Overruled; no reversible error in denying new trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bruni v. Tatsumi, 46 Ohio St.2d 127, 346 N.E.2d 673 (1976) (establishes three elements of medical negligence and need for expert testimony when beyond common knowledge)
- Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 95 Ohio St.3d 512, 2002-Ohio-2842, 769 N.E.2d 835 (2002) (directed verdict standard; deference to pleadings and opening statements)