2026-Ohio-1444
Ohio Ct. App. 1st2026Background
- Durrani and CAST appealed judgments finding them liable for negligent surgery, lack of informed consent, battery, fraud, and derivative consortium claims after a joint jury trial involving three plaintiffs. 1
- Reynolds alleged unnecessary cervical and lumbar revision surgeries after prior spine operations; Wyatt alleged unnecessary two-level cervical surgery despite believing only one level would be operated on. 2
- Puckett-Morrissette alleged unnecessary C1-C2 fusion surgery despite no prior back surgeries, with Durrani attributing her instability to Ehlers-Danlos syndrome. 3
- The jury returned verdicts for plaintiffs, the trial court awarded prejudgment interest, denied JNOV, new trial, and setoff motions, and applied statutory damages caps. 4
- On appeal, Durrani challenged joinder, evidentiary rulings, damages, setoff, and prejudgment interest. 5
- The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, sustained the setoff and future-medical-damages arguments, and remanded. 6
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the cases were properly consolidated for trial 7 | Common spine surgeries, experts, and malpractice theories justified joinder | Separate trials were required and joinder caused prejudice | Consolidation was proper and not unfairly prejudicial 8 |
| Whether expert and jury-instruction rulings warranted new trial or JNOV 9 | Wilkey and Saini were qualified, and the absence instruction was proper | Wilkey was unqualified, Saini exceeded radiology expertise, and the absence instruction was improper | The challenged testimony and instruction were properly admitted 10 |
| Whether the damages awards were supported, including past and future medical expenses 11 | Expert testimony supported future care and damage amounts | Past medical expenses, future medical expenses, and insurer joinder were erroneous | Past-medical challenges were waived; future-medical awards were vacated 12 |
| Whether Durrani was entitled to a setoff for other settlements 13 | No setoff was warranted under the statute | Settlements with other tortfeasors required a statutory setoff | Durrani was entitled to a setoff; remand required to calculate it 14 |
| Whether prejudgment interest was properly awarded 15 | Plaintiffs made good-faith settlement efforts | Plaintiffs' eleventh-hour demand showed no good faith | Prejudgment interest was properly awarded 16 |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Durrani, 2024-Ohio-1776 (1st Dist. 2024) (consolidation permitted where actions share common questions of law or fact 17)
- Courtney v. Durrani, 2025-Ohio-2335 (1st Dist. 2025) (consolidation prejudice requires a showing of unfair prejudice 18)
- Oberlin v. Akron Gen. Med. Ctr., 91 Ohio St.3d 169 (Ohio 2001) (party opposing consolidation must show unfair prejudice 19)
- Ravenscraft v. Durrani, 2025-Ohio-2900 (1st Dist. 2025) (radiologist testimony may overlap with surgical standard-of-care issues 20)
- Fenner v. Durrani, 2025-Ohio-4477 (1st Dist. 2025) (Durrani is entitled to a statutory setoff under R.C. 2307.28(A) 21)
- Bender v. Durrani, 2024-Ohio-1258 (1st Dist. 2024) (future medical damages must rest on evidence, and prejudgment-interest good-faith rulings are discretionary 22)