2026-Ohio-2639
Ohio Ct. App. 1st2026Background
- Jones and Weisman separately sued Durrani and CAST for alleged unnecessary spine surgeries and related fraud, negligence, battery, and informed-consent claims. 1
- Over Appellants' objection, the trial court joined the two cases for one jury trial and allowed Dr. Tayeb's deposition excerpts and Dr. Saini's expert testimony. 2
- The jury found Durrani negligent as to both plaintiffs but no proximate cause, found fraudulent misrepresentation caused both plaintiffs' harms, and awarded substantial economic, noneconomic, and punitive damages. 3
- Weisman testified she knew something was wrong with her surgery within months, continued treating with Durrani through November 2010, and first sued in November 2013. 4
- Jones's evidence showed different diagnoses and surgery levels, with competing experts sharply disagreeing about necessity, recordkeeping, and imaging interpretation. 5
- The court of appeals reversed, directing judgment for Appellants on Weisman's claims and a new trial for Jones. 6
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Weisman's claims barred by statute of limitations? 7 | Weisman was a minor and did not discover a cognizable event until later. | Weisman's testimony showed she knew surgery was wrong by 2010. | Weisman sued too late; directed verdict should have been granted. 8 |
| Was joinder of Jones and Weisman proper? 9 | Same defendants, same experts, similar fraud theory, and efficiency favored joinder. | Different patients, diagnoses, surgeries, and facts defeated commonality. | Joinder was an abuse of discretion and prejudicial. 10 |
| Was Dr. Tayeb's deposition hearsay admissible? 11 | His testimony showed Durrani's reputation and practices. | It was inadmissible hearsay and not true reputation evidence. | Admission was erroneous. 12 |
| Did Dr. Saini testify beyond radiology expertise? 13 | His testimony on images, notes, and procedure was within his knowledge. | He improperly opined on surgery choice and treatment recommendations. | Some testimony was proper, but several opinions exceeded his expertise. 14 |
| Was cumulative expert testimony prejudicial? 15 | Multiple experts were needed to explain different aspects of malpractice. | Bloomfield and Wilkey repeated the same criticisms. | Duplicative expert testimony was improperly admitted and not harmless. 16 |
Key Cases Cited
- Frysinger v. Leech, 32 Ohio St.3d 38 (Ohio 1987) (medical-malpractice accrual follows discovery or termination of treatment, whichever occurs later 17)
- Allenius v. Thomas, 42 Ohio St.3d 131 (Ohio 1989) (a patient need not know the full extent of injury before a cognizable event occurs 18)
- Flowers v. Walker, 63 Ohio St.3d 546 (Ohio 1992) (constructive knowledge of facts, not legal significance, triggers accrual 19)