Wilson v. Durrani, 2026-Ohio-2279

Durrani appealed judgments entered on jury verdicts for Wilson, Crail, and Smith after they sued over allegedly unnecessary spinal surgeries. 1
The plaintiffs' complaints asserted battery, negligence, fraudulent misrepresentation, and lack of informed consent based on individualized surgeries and medical images. 2
The trial court consolidated the three cases for a joint jury trial over Durrani's objection, citing common witnesses, similar surgeries, and docket efficiency. 3
The joint trial produced different liability verdicts and damages awards for each plaintiff, including differing results on battery, fraud, and informed consent claims. 4
After verdicts, Durrani sought JNOV or a new trial, arguing the consolidation was improper; the trial court denied relief and upheld joinder under Civ.R. 42(A). 5
The court of appeals reversed, holding the cases lacked a common question of law or fact capable of common resolution and remanding for individual trials. 6

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Were the three malpractice cases properly joined for trial under Civ.R. 42(A)? 7	Wilson, Crail, and Smith argued similar surgeries, witnesses, and liability theories justified joinder.	Durrani argued each case turned on individualized surgery, consent, and damages evidence.	No; joinder was improper because no common answer resolved liability across all three cases. 8
What does Civ.R. 42(A) require for a common question of law? 9	A similar theory of malpractice or fraud was enough.	A common question must permit one answer for all plaintiffs' liability claims.	A common legal question must be resolvable with one uniform answer affecting liability. 10
What does Civ.R. 42(A) require for a common question of fact? 11	Shared spinal-surgery themes and common experts established factual commonality.	The material facts and proof were individualized to each plaintiff's condition and surgery.	A common factual question must be material and uniformly resolvable through common proof; these cases lacked that. 12
Was the improper joinder harmless error? 13	Any error was harmless because the jury separated the claims and awarded distinct damages.	The consolidated trial prejudiced him, as shown by split verdicts and inconsistent damages.	No; the joinder prejudiced Durrani and was not harmless. 14

State v. Sears, 143 Ohio St. 312 (Ohio 1944) (plain meaning controls when statutory text is unambiguous 15)
Dir. of Hwys. v. Kleines, 38 Ohio St.2d 317 (Ohio 1974) (consolidation requires a common question and cannot proceed on expedience alone 16)
Hamilton v. Ohio Savs. Bank, 82 Ohio St.3d 67 (Ohio 1998) (commonality in class actions focuses on a shared liability issue 17)
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (U.S. 2011) (common claims must be capable of classwide resolution in one stroke 18)
Hall v. Hall, 584 U.S. 59 (U.S. 2018) (consolidation is for convenience and does not merge separate suits 19)
Neri v. Nissan N. Am., Inc., 122 F.4th 239 (6th Cir. 2024) (common questions require identical answers and common proof 20)