Yurkowski v. Univ. of Cincinnati, 2017 Ohio 7681

Background

Peter Yurkowski, a long‑term psychiatric patient with major depression and panic disorder and a history of suicide attempts, was treated by Dr. James Curell at University Hospital and discharged on March 22, 2005; days later he committed suicide.
Plaintiffs (wife and children) sued University of Cincinnati in the Court of Claims for medical malpractice, wrongful death, and loss of consortium, alleging Dr. Curell breached the standard of care by discharging Peter.
The Court of Claims previously granted statutory immunity to Dr. Curell (scope‑of‑employment), which plaintiffs did not appeal; liability and damages were bifurcated and tried separately.
This litigation produced two prior appellate opinions (Yurkowski I and II) that: (1) rejected application of the professional‑judgment rule and remanded on whether the discharge breached the ordinary malpractice standard, and (2) limited the remand to that discrete issue and required a new evidentiary hearing.
On remand the Court of Claims held a focused evidentiary hearing; it credited testimony from Drs. Curell and Schechter that discharge met the standard of care and found plaintiffs failed to prove breach or proximate cause.
Plaintiffs appealed again, raising three assignments of error: (1) trial court should have revisited immunity; (2) discharge decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence; (3) proximate cause was proven.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court was required to revisit or rehear immunity on remand	Immunity finding should be reassessed because the remand narrowed the relevant time frame to the discharge decision	Immunity was previously adjudicated, unappealed, and outside the limited remand; doctrines of res judicata/waiver bar relitigation	Court of Appeals: plaintiffs are precluded from relitigating immunity; no duty to reopen immunity on this limited remand
Whether Dr. Curell breached the standard of care by discharging Peter on March 22, 2005	Discharge was negligent: failed/insufficient suicide risk assessment, misweighed risk vs. protective factors, discharged alone with lethal meds and access to drugs	Discharge was supported by clinical improvement, individualized risk/benefit analysis, ongoing assessment, and reasonable judgment that inpatient care was no longer required	Court of Appeals: court of claims’ credibility determinations supported; finding of no breach not against manifest weight of evidence
Whether lack of documented suicide risk assessment constituted breach	Argues absence of documentation shows no proper risk assessment was done	Prior appellate decision already addressed and rejected this claim; experts testified assessment occurred despite limited written documentation	Law of the case bars relitigation of this issue; appellate court affirms prior ruling
Whether plaintiffs proved proximate causation between any breach and death	Dr. Granacher’s opinion purportedly established causation	Because plaintiffs failed to prove breach, causation inquiry is moot; credibility and causation were rejected by trial court	Proximate cause issue rendered moot by affirmance on breach element

Key Cases Cited

Bruni v. Tatsumi, 46 Ohio St.2d 127 (Ohio 1976) (sets ordinary medical‑malpractice standard and elements)
Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (Ohio 2012) (standards for manifest‑weight review in civil cases)
C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr. Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279 (Ohio 1978) (judgments supported by some competent, credible evidence will not be reversed)
Seasons Coal Co., Inc. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77 (Ohio 1984) (deference to trier of fact on witness credibility)