Potts v. Durrani
229 N.E.3d 792
Ohio Ct. App.2023Background
- Jeffrey Potts had longstanding lumbar problems and underwent surgery by Dr. Abubakar Durrani in October 2010 (laminectomy/foraminotomy/DLIF) that resulted in intraoperative complications, including a trocar-related through-and-through ascending colon puncture, sepsis, colon resection, collapsed lung, and subsequent infections. Potts later died (substituted by Cheryl Potts as executrix).
- Potts sued Durrani and CAST in 2012 asserting medical negligence, failure to obtain informed consent, battery, fraud, and loss of consortium; the case was tried to a jury in July 2019.
- The jury returned verdicts for the Pottses (negligence, lack of informed consent, battery, fraud), found a catastrophic injury, and awarded substantial compensatory and punitive damages and attorney fees.
- The trial court later reduced many awards (including conforming noneconomic damages to statutory caps), applied a small setoff, awarded prejudgment interest and court costs, and reduced punitive damages; appellants timely appealed.
- The appellate court (this opinion) reviewed evidentiary challenges and multiple damages issues, holding the evidentiary errors harmless but finding error in the trial court’s award of prejudgment interest and court costs because the postjudgment motions had been validly withdrawn and could not be reinstated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether errors in admission of comments (license revocation, voir dire/opening/closing) required new trial | Potts argued limited references were permissible and harmless given other evidence | Durrani argued references to license revocation and other comments were unfairly prejudicial | Harmless error; limited references (voir dire/opening) and context made disclosure not reversible given other admissible evidence |
| Whether Dr. Wilkey’s unedited cancer comment and characterizations required mistrial | Potts said comment was inadvertent and curative instruction sufficed; cancer not linked to claims | Durrani argued comment prejudiced jury and affected punitive award | Harmless; video stopped, jury admonished to disregard, juries are presumed to follow curative instructions; no linkage shown |
| Whether Dr. Saini (radiologist) testified beyond expertise (opining on surgical technique causing complications) | Potts contended Saini’s opinions on MRI reading, informed consent, and complications were within overlapping medical expertise | Durrani argued Saini improperly opined on operative technique and causation beyond radiology | Court erred to the extent Saini opined on operative technique and causation, but error was harmless because other experts contradicted and trial focus was on misrepresentation/necessity of surgery |
| Whether defendants were entitled to inspect settling-defendant agreements for setoff determination | Potts relied on in-camera review and provided documentation to court | Durrani argued due process required access to settlement agreements to test setoff calculation | No error: trial court conducted in-camera review and verified amounts; no blanket rule requires disclosure to defendants |
| Whether trial properly submitted catastrophic-injury issue and applied heightened noneconomic cap | Potts argued evidence showed permanent functional limits and inability to perform life-sustaining activities | Durrani argued insufficient evidence to meet statutory threshold | There was sufficient evidence to submit the issue to the jury; trial court did not abuse discretion in submitting catastrophic-injury question |
| Whether awards for future and past medical expenses were supported by evidence | Potts produced expert estimates and past-bill evidence; Medicare/Humana liens/settlements addressed | Durrani argued future costs speculative and past expenses belonged to payors, not Potts | Future medical expense award supported by expert estimates; past medical expense award appropriate given lien settlements and jury’s ability to determine reasonable value |
| Whether trial court could reinstate withdrawn motions and award prejudgment interest and court costs | Potts had filed then withdrawn postjudgment motions; court later reinstated and awarded interest/costs | Durrani argued withdrawal precluded reinstatement and awards | Reinstatement was error: under intervening controlling precedent the withdrawn motions could not be reinstated; prejudgment interest and court costs awards vacated and remanded for recalculation without those items |
Key Cases Cited
- Setters v. Durrani, 164 N.E.3d 1159 (1st Dist.) (discussing prejudice of license revocation references and harmless-error analysis)
- Adams v. Durrani, 183 N.E.3d 560 (1st Dist.) (expert qualification across overlapping specialties and limits on ad hominem testimony)
- Johnson v. Abdullah, 187 N.E.3d 463 (Ohio 2021) (de novo review for legal issues such as statutory application)
- Arbino v. Johnson & Johnson, 880 N.E.2d 420 (Ohio 2007) (trial court’s limited threshold role in submitting catastrophic-injury issues to jury)
- Robinson v. Bates, 857 N.E.2d 1195 (Ohio 2006) (reasonable value of medical services is a jury question)
- Moretz v. Muakkassa, 998 N.E.2d 479 (Ohio 2013) (reaffirming jury’s role in determining reasonable medical charges)
- Pattison v. W.W. Grainger, Inc., 897 N.E.2d 126 (Ohio 2008) (discussing limits on creating finality by withdrawal of claims)
- State v. Zuern, 512 N.E.2d 585 (Ohio 1987) (presumption that juries follow curative instructions)