2023 Ohio 789
Ohio Ct. App.2023Background
- In July 2019 William J. Yung, III underwent a routine MRI and alleges the MRI noise caused permanent hearing loss because the MRI tech (Kristina Waites) failed to properly seat his earplugs.
- Yung sued UC Health in May 2020 for medical malpractice; discovery included two depositions of plaintiff’s expert, Dr. David Greene (an otolaryngologist).
- UC Health moved for summary judgment and to exclude Dr. Greene under Daubert; the trial court initially denied that motion.
- After a second deposition of Dr. Greene, UC Health filed a renewed summary-judgment motion shortly before trial; the trial court granted it three days before trial and before Yung could file a response.
- The trial court’s judgment disposed of Yung’s case; Yung appealed, challenging denial of his motion to strike and the grant of renewed summary judgment.
- The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding Yung raised genuine issues of material fact and that Dr. Greene was qualified to create a jury question on standard of care, breach, and causation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by ruling on renewed summary-judgment motion before Yung could file a response (procedural/due process) | Court short-circuited Civ.R. 6(C)(1); Yung was entitled to 28 days to respond | Trial court may reconsider interlocutory denials; renewed motion rehashed earlier issues | Procedural denial of response deadline raised concerns but was rendered moot by merits ruling |
| Whether Dr. Greene (an ENT) is qualified to testify about the standard of care for hearing protection in an MRI setting | Greene is qualified to opine on standards for ear protection and overlapping duties between ENT and MRI techs | Greene lacks radiology/technologist specialty and cannot opine on MRI technologist standard of care | ENT expertise overlaps with MRI technologist duties re: ear protection; Greene qualified to testify on ear-protection standard |
| Whether Greene’s testimony established the applicable standard of care, breach, and causation (sufficiency of expert evidence) | Greene testified MRI requires adequate hearing protection, earplugs can protect, Waites failed to protect Yung, and MRI caused his hearing loss; plaintiff’s testimony supports facts used by expert | Greene’s testimony was equivocal in places; did not precisely outline radiology tech procedures; factual inconsistencies undermine causation | Construing evidence in plaintiff’s favor, Greene’s testimony minimally established standard, breach, and causation to create a jury question |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate | Summary judgment improper because genuine issues of material fact exist | No admissible expert proof of standard/breach so summary judgment proper | Summary judgment reversed and case remanded for trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Alexander v. Mt. Carmel Med. Ctr., 56 Ohio St.2d 155, 383 N.E.2d 564 (1978) (overlapping medical specialties can permit expert testimony on shared standards)
- Bruni v. Tatsumi, 46 Ohio St.2d 127, 346 N.E.2d 673 (1976) (plaintiff must prove recognized medical standard and negligent departure via expert testimony)
- Davis v. Virginian Ry. Co., 361 U.S. 354 (1960) (on necessity of proof elements in negligence claims)
- Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317, 364 N.E.2d 267 (1977) (standard for summary-judgment review)
- Finley v. United States, 314 F. Supp. 905 (N.D. Ohio 1970) (importance of expert proof of recognized standards)
- Ishler v. Miller, 56 Ohio St.2d 447, 384 N.E.2d 296 (1978) (expert with related specialty may testify when fields overlap)
- Adams v. Durrani, 183 N.E.3d 560 (1st Dist. 2022) (expert must show knowledge of defendant’s specialty standard to opine on conformity)