Worley v. Durrani
2025 Ohio 2245
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2025Background
- Fay Rosebery, a 72-year-old with a history of back pain, sought treatment from Dr. Abubakar Atiq Durrani, who recommended and performed two spine surgeries, claimed by plaintiff to be medically unnecessary.
- After the surgeries, Rosebery allegedly experienced no improvement and suffered ongoing pain; she and her daughter (plaintiff Worley, as executrix) filed a medical malpractice suit against Durrani and Center for Advanced Spine Technologies, Inc. (CAST).
- The trial resulted in a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff on claims of negligence, lack of informed consent, and fraudulent misrepresentation, with compensatory and nominal punitive damages awarded.
- At trial, plaintiff presented a video compilation of Durrani’s deposition that included evidence about his unrelated legal issues, background, medical license revocations, and character.
- Durrani and CAST moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial, arguing that admission of the video and discussion of Durrani’s licenses were improper and prejudicial; the trial court denied a new trial but granted partial remittitur.
- On appeal, the First District Court reviewed whether evidentiary errors warranted a new trial and if other issues (like setoff for settlements) still needed review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of 'Durrani Collage' video | Helped jury evaluate Durrani’s credibility and intent | Irrelevant, prejudicial character attack; not case-related | Trial court abused discretion in admitting video |
| Admission of license revocation evidence | Relevant to Durrani’s credibility | Repeated references prejudiced jury, irrelevant to claims | Admission was improper and prejudicial |
| Denial of new trial due to cumulative error | Claims substantiated by expert and factual evidence | Multiple errors shifted focus from malpractice to character | Cumulative error warranted a new trial |
| Setoff for settlements with other defendants | Plaintiff entitled to full jury award | Double recovery barred by settlements with other parties | Moot (not addressed due to reversal and remand) |
Key Cases Cited
- Mann v. Durrani, 2023-Ohio-2672 (1st Dist.) (trial courts abused discretion by admitting unrelated and prejudicial character evidence about Dr. Durrani in similar cases)
- Stephenson v. Durrani, 2023-Ohio-2500 (1st Dist.) (cumulative evidentiary errors on character evidence noted as reversible error in Durrani cases)
- Niehaus v. Durrani, 2023-Ohio-4818 (1st Dist.) (admission of broad-ranging, irrelevant video collage regarding Durrani's background found to be prejudicial and reversible)
- Setters v. Durrani, 2020-Ohio-6859 (1st Dist.) (analysis of circumstances when evidentiary error is reversible and substantial justice standard)