Simon v. Larreategui, 2022 Ohio 1881

Background

In December 2016 Mrs. Nicolette Simon underwent a planned colon resection; an Ethicon Contour Curved Cutter Stapler was used to transect and resect bowel but allegedly cut without forming staple lines.
The misfire forced conversion to an open procedure, led to an initial colostomy and subsequent additional surgeries; Mrs. Simon now has an ileostomy and suffered severe, long‑term injuries.
The Simons sued the surgeon and Ethicon; at trial the jury found the surgeon nonnegligent but unanimously found Ethicon’s stapler was a manufacturing defect and awarded the Simons $10,314,174.50.
Ethicon moved for JNOV (directed‑verdict standard) which the trial court denied; the court later awarded the Simons prejudgment interest after a hearing.
Ethicon appealed, challenging (1) sufficiency of the evidence on manufacturing defect and causation (JNOV), (2) admission of surgeon testimony about device performance, and (3) the prejudgment interest award.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency (JNOV): Was there any evidence to support a manufacturing‑defect verdict?	Simons: testimony from the surgeon and OR staff that the stapler, removed from a sealed package and used per IFU, cut but failed to staple; circumstantial proof permitted because the device was destroyed.	Ethicon: no direct proof of a manufacturing defect; alternative explanation is user error (retaining pin not in anvil); physical evidence supports misuse.	Court: Evidence (direct testimony + circumstantial proof because device was broken) was sufficient for a reasonable juror to find a manufacturing defect, proximate causation, and that Ethicon made the stapler. JNOV denied.
Admissibility: Could surgeons testify about whether the stapler behaved in an unexpected/unsafe way?	Simons: Surgeons can testify from their repeated use and experience about expected performance; no engineering degree required.	Ethicon: Only engineers should opine that the device had a manufacturing defect or failed to meet performance specs; admission prejudiced Ethicon.	Court: Trial court did not abuse discretion. Many objections were unpreserved; where objected, the questions asked experienced surgeons to compare expected vs. observed performance — permissible.
Prejudgment interest under R.C. 1343.03(C): Did court err in finding Ethicon failed to make good‑faith settlement efforts?	Simons: Ethicon did not respond to their settlement demand, failed to make a good‑faith offer, and did not rationally evaluate risk.	Ethicon: Had a viable defense and no duty to offer settlement when it reasonably believed it had no liability.	Court: Trial court properly held a hearing and did not abuse its discretion in finding Ethicon failed to make good‑faith settlement efforts; prejudgment interest awarded.

Key Cases Cited

Gallagher v. Cleveland Browns Football Co., 74 Ohio St.3d 427 (1996) (standard for JNOV equals directed verdict review)
Goodyear Tire Co. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 95 Ohio St.3d 512 (2002) (directed‑verdict test requires any evidence of probative value favoring nonmovant)
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Chrysler Corp., 37 Ohio St.3d 1 (1988) (product defects may be proven by direct or circumstantial evidence)
Colboch v. Uniroyal Tire Co., Inc., 108 Ohio App.3d 448 (8th Dist. 1996) (product liability may be proven with circumstantial evidence)
Schafer v. RMS Realty, 138 Ohio App.3d 244 (2d Dist. 2000) (de novo review of legal sufficiency in directed‑verdict/JNOV context)
Rieger v. Giant Eagle, Inc., 157 Ohio St.3d 512 (2019) (proximate cause is generally a jury question)
Moskovitz v. Mt. Sinai Med. Ctr., 69 Ohio St.3d 638 (1994) (award of prejudgment interest under R.C. 1343.03 is reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Kalain v. Smith, 25 Ohio St.3d 157 (1986) (good‑faith settlement effort defined for R.C. 1343.03 purposes)
Peyko v. Frederick, 25 Ohio St.3d 164 (1986) (purpose of prejudgment interest statute is to encourage settlement and conserve resources)