2023 Ohio 3035
Ohio Ct. App.2023Background
- Plaintiff Sierra Stratman underwent an L5–S1 anterior bilateral decompression, discectomy, and fusion by Dr. Abubakar Durrani in October 2010 and initially improved.
- Stratman later alleged the surgery was unnecessary or improperly performed; she had subsequent trauma (an assault and a fall) and underwent revision surgery in 2014 by another surgeon.
- Stratman sued Durrani and CAST for malpractice, fraud, lack of informed consent, battery, IIED, violations of the Safe Medical Devices Act, and related claims; the jury found for Stratman on negligence and fraudulent misrepresentation.
- Trial verdict awarded substantial economic and non‑economic damages; the court reduced non‑economic damages post‑verdict; defendants appealed on evidentiary and damages grounds.
- The appellate court found multiple trial errors (admission of a "collage" of deposition excerpts, repeated references to license revocations, and an overbroad instruction about Durrani’s absence) that were not harmless and reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of deposition "collage" excerpts | Collage fairly presented Durrani’s prior testimony and was probative | Collage was irrelevant, unduly prejudicial, and violated evidentiary rules | Trial court abused discretion admitting the collage; error contributed to need for new trial |
| Evidence of Durrani’s medical license revocations | Revocations were probative of credibility and relevant background | Revocations were minimally probative, highly prejudicial, and should be excluded under Evid.R. 403 | Admission and repeated emphasis on revocations was an abuse of discretion and not harmless here |
| Jury instruction permitting inference from Durrani’s absence | Instruction allowed consideration of absence as part of deliberations | Instruction was overbroad and invited impermissible adverse inferences | Identical to instruction previously held erroneous; abuse of discretion to give it |
| Damages, prejudgment interest, attorney fees, and set‑offs | Awards and offsets were proper | Awards and calculations raised errors | Court found damages issues moot because reversal and remand for new trial were required |
Key Cases Cited
- Setters v. Durrani, 164 N.E.3d 1159 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020) (evidence of license revocations prejudicial under Evid.R. 403)
- Adams v. Durrani, 183 N.E.3d 560 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022) (standard of review and new‑trial analysis)
- Pierce v. Durrani, 35 N.E.3d 594 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015) (limits on comments about a defendant physician’s absence)
- Stephenson v. Durrani, [citation=""] (cited in opinion for collage analysis) (discussed pervasive prejudicial impact of collage)
- Beard v. Meridia Huron Hosp., 834 N.E.2d 323 (Ohio 2005) (reversible error only when substantial rights affected)
- O'Brien v. Angley, 407 N.E.2d 490 (Ohio 1980) (weighing prejudicial effect in determining substantial justice)
- Johnson v. Abdullah, 187 N.E.3d 463 (Ohio 2021) (abuse of discretion definition)
- Kreller Group v. WFS Fin., Inc., 798 N.E.2d 1179 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003) (appellate review standard on motions post‑trial)
(Note: the opinion also relies on several unpublished or recent district decisions cited by name in the text.)