Reeves v. Healy
192 Ohio App. 3d 769
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Reeves, a 41-year-old, presented December 13, 2005 with left eyelid droop and inability to move the left eye; she had an artificial heart valve and admitted poor Coumadin adherence due to lack of insurance.
- Dr. Healy (ER physician) and Maden (physician assistant) examined Reeves; initial brain CT was negative for stroke and sinusitis was later found on facial CT; Healy diagnosed pupil-sparing III nerve palsy.
- Reeves later experienced a midbrainstem stroke diagnosed at OSUMC after seeking care at OSUMC Eye Clinic; she underwent rehab and disability is expected to be lifelong.
- Reeves amended her medical-malpractice complaint February 28, 2008 against Dr. Healy, IHA, Maden, Dr. Doyle, Mid-Ohio Ophthalmic Consultants, and St. Ann’s; Doyle, Mid-Ohio, and St. Ann’s were later dismissed.
- A jury found Healy negligent and causation supported Reeves’ injuries, awarding economic damages of $450,000 and noneconomic damages of $0; Maden was directed to verdict; the trial court granted a new trial on all issues due to jury-interrogatory irregularities, Reeves challenged the order, and defendants cross-appealed; the court affirmed the new-trial order and related rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the new trial on all issues was proper due to juror-interrogatory irregularities | Reeves argues no irregularity warranting a new trial. | Healy/IHA contend irregularities justify a full new trial. | Yes; irregularities in jury interrogatories and verdict forms supported a Civ.R. 59(A)(1) new trial. |
| Whether the new trial should have limited to noneconomic damages | Only noneconomic damages should be retried if liability and causation are supported. | New trial should encompass all issues because of the irregular verdict. | Moot; the court allowed a full new trial on all issues. |
| Whether the directed verdict for Maden was proper | Maden breached the standard of care as a physician assistant. | Physician assistant standard of care applies; Reeves failed to prove it. | Upheld; directed verdict for Maden proper due to lack of expert proof distinguishing PA standard of care. |
| Whether the denial of JNOV and defenses of assumption of the risk and contributory negligence were proper | N/A | Defendants challenged denial of JNOV and tried to use defenses. | Defendants’ JNOV and defense denials were upheld; defenses of assumption of the risk and contributory negligence were not available to defendants under these circumstances. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lambert v. Shearer, 84 Ohio App.3d 266 (1992) (contributory negligence not available pre-treatment; contemporaneity required)
- Lambert v. Shearer, 84 Ohio App.3d 266 (1992) (contributory negligence not available pre-treatment; contemporaneity required)
- Continental Ins. Co. v. Whittington, 71 Ohio St.3d 150 (1994) (interlocutory denial of summary judgment may be reviewed on appeal)
- Cincinnati Riverfront Coliseum, Inc. v. McNulty Co., 28 Ohio St.3d 333 (1986) (purpose of jury interrogatories testing correctness of general verdict)
- Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Niemiec, 172 Ohio St. 53 (1961) (importance of jury interrogatories in testing determinations)
- Segedy v. Cardiothoracic & Vascular Surgery of Akron, Inc., 182 Ohio App.3d 768 (2009) (pre-treatment conduct not offsetting physician negligence in malpractice)
- Brinkmoeller v. Wilson, 41 Ohio St.2d 223 (1975) (contributory negligence must be contemporaneous with malpractice)
- Bruni v. Tatsumi, 46 Ohio St.2d 127 (1976) (standard of care for medical malpractice requires expert testimony)
- Texler v. D.O. Summers Cleaners & Shirt Laundry Co., 81 Ohio St.3d 677 (1998) (directed verdict standard; reasonable minds may differ)