2025 Ohio 2900
Ohio Ct. App.2025Background
- Mary Ravenscraft and Arletta Sue Bowling both brought suit against Dr. Abubakar Atiq Durrani and the Center for Advanced Spine Technologies (CAST), claiming unnecessary spinal-fusion surgeries lacking informed consent and constituting fraud and negligence.
- Both cases were consolidated for a joint trial in the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas following plaintiff motions for group trials due to overlapping facts and legal issues.
- At trial, both patients presented testimony from multiple experts asserting the surgeries were not medically indicated and diagnostic information was misrepresented by Durrani; defense experts countered that the surgeries met standard care.
- Verdicts favored both Ravenscraft and Bowling, awarding compensatory and punitive damages; the trial judge subsequently reduced those awards.
- Defendants moved for a new trial and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, challenging expert witness qualifications, various evidentiary rulings, and jury instructions.
- The lower court denied those post-trial motions, and defendants appealed on several procedural and substantive grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Joint trial of both plaintiffs' cases | Common issues predominate, justifying a joint trial | Different factual histories and prejudicial risk require separate trials | Joint trial was proper due to common questions of law and fact; no abuse of discretion found |
| Admission of Dr. Tayeb’s testimony | Testimony corroborated Durrani’s habitual assurances | Testimony was improper hearsay, habit evidence, and prejudicial to Durrani | Some improper habit testimony allowed, but error was harmless; Shanti's comments admissible as statement against interest |
| Dr. Wilkey’s qualification under Evid.R. 601 | Expert satisfied the amended clinical-practice rule at surgery time | Wilkey not actively practicing at time of trial so was not competent under old rule | Amended rule applies retroactively; Wilkey’s testimony admissible |
| Lack of comparative negligence instruction | Evidence does not show Bowling’s noncompliance caused injury | Failure to do physical therapy is contributory negligence and should bar recovery or reduce damages | No instruction required; no evidence that noncompliance caused or contributed to injury |
| Dr. Saini’s expert testimony scope | Testimony within the scope of neuroradiology (interpreting imaging relevant to surgery) | Saini testified beyond his area of expertise about surgical technique and operative notes | Testimony within his expertise; permitted to interpret imaging and discuss implications as neuroradiologist |
| Adverse inference from Durrani’s absence at trial | Jury properly instructed discretion on drawing inferences | Jury misled to negatively infer liability solely from absence | Instruction was harmless error; jury told inference was discretionary |
| Failure to submit damages-itemization interrogatory | Not preserved or argued as plain error | Jury should have allocated damages by claim | Forfeited by lack of objection and no plain error argument on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Abdullah, 166 Ohio St.3d 427 (active clinical practice requirement for medical expert testimony)
- Kleines, 38 Ohio St.2d 317 (joinder of actions under Civ.R. 42 to avoid unnecessary costs/delays)
- Alexander v. Mt. Carmel Med. Ctr., 56 Ohio St.2d 155 (scope of expert qualification in medical malpractice)
- Brinkmoeller v. Wilson, 41 Ohio St.2d 223 (requirements for contributory negligence defense in Ohio)
- Geiselman v. Scott, 25 Ohio St. 86 (patient's breach of surgeon's instructions and contributory negligence)