White v. Durrani
168 N.E.3d 597
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Sophia White injured her back and was treated by Dr. Nael Shanti, an employee of the Center for Advanced Spine Technologies, Inc. (CAST), owned by Dr. Abubakar Durrani.
- Mrs. White signed informed-consent forms (office and hospital) listing the procedure as L5–S1 laminotomy and discectomy to be performed by Dr. Shanti; operative records show a bilateral L5–S1 laminotomy with recess decompression (no discectomy).
- Postoperative symptoms persisted; in August 2014 the Whites executed a release settling claims against Dr. Shanti (no admission of liability).
- In January 2016 the Whites sued Dr. Durrani and CAST (did not name Shanti), asserting negligence, lack of informed consent, fraud, vicarious liability, and related claims.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for CAST/Durrani on vicarious liability (release/statute of limitations/no suit against Shanti) and later granted a directed verdict for Durrani/CAST on negligence, informed consent, and fraud; the Whites appealed.
- The First District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (White) | Defendant's Argument (Durrani/CAST) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether directed verdict on negligence against Durrani was improper | Durrani had a physician–patient relationship / participated in care and breached duty | No evidence Durrani met, consulted, recommended, or performed surgery; no physician–patient relationship → no duty | Affirmed: no duty; directed verdict proper |
| Whether directed verdict on lack-of-informed-consent claim was improper | Consent forms were inadequate and Durrani failed to disclose material risks | Durrani did not have a duty to obtain consent because he lacked a physician–patient relationship for the surgery | Affirmed: no duty; directed verdict proper |
| Whether directed verdict on fraud claims was improper | CAST/Durrani billed for more visits than Whites received and misled Plaintiffs/insurers | Whites had no evidence CAST/Durrani made false representations to them, that Whites relied on any bills, or that they were injured by reliance | Affirmed: insufficient proof of misrepresentation, reliance, or injury |
| Whether summary judgment on vicarious liability was improper | Release of Shanti does not bar imputation of acts to employer under respondeat superior | Settlement/release of servant extinguishes servant’s liability; if agent not liable, master cannot be vicariously liable; Sawicki’s immunity discussion inapplicable | Affirmed: release of Shanti exonerated CAST/Durrani; summary judgment proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Rieger v. Giant Eagle, Inc., 157 Ohio St.3d 512, 138 N.E.3d 1121 (Ohio 2019) (directed-verdict/Civ.R. 50 standard and review principles)
- White v. Leimbach, 131 Ohio St.3d 21, 959 N.E.2d 1033 (Ohio 2011) (informed-consent elements and related standards)
- Ruta v. Breckenridge-Remy Co., 69 Ohio St.2d 66, 430 N.E.2d 935 (Ohio 1982) (requirement to review and consider evidence on directed verdict)
- Lownsbury v. VanBuren, 94 Ohio St.3d 231, 762 N.E.2d 354 (Ohio 2002) (physician–patient relationship as basis for duty)
- Tracy v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 58 Ohio St.3d 147, 569 N.E.2d 875 (Ohio 1991) (explanation of fiduciary nature of physician–patient relationship)
- Natl. Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. Wuerth, 122 Ohio St.3d 594, 913 N.E.2d 939 (Ohio 2009) (release/settlement of servant exonerates master; vicarious liability requires primary liability of agent)
- State ex rel. Sawicki v. Lucas Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 126 Ohio St.3d 198, 931 N.E.2d 1082 (Ohio 2010) (distinguishing immunity analysis from vicarious-liability principles)