EDWARD LALLY, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. THRESIAMMA MUKKADA, M.D., and INDEPENDENT ANESTHESIOLOGISTS, P.S.C., Defendants-Appellees.
APPEAL NO. C-100602
TRIAL NO. A-0800142
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
July 29, 2011
[Cite as Lally v. Mukkada, 2011-Ohio-3681.]
Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed
Sutton Rankin Law, PLC, Harry D. Rankin, and Roger N. Braden, for Plaintiff-Appellant,
Lindhorst & Dreidame, Michael F. Lyon, and Bradley D. McPeеk, for Defendants-Appellees.
Please note: This case has been removed from the accelerated calendar.
D E C I S I O N.
{¶1} Edward Lally appеals the trial court‘s judgment that denied his motion for a directed verdict and motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial, and that entered judgment in favor оf Thresiamma A. Mukkada, M.D., and Independent Anesthesiologists, P.S.C. We conclude that Lally‘s sole assignment of error is without merit, so we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
{¶2} Lally filed a complaint against Mukkada in which he alleged that Mukkada had failed to meet the standard of care for an anesthesiologist. The case was tried to a jury. During trial, Lally presented evidence that, in July 2006, he had gone to Tri-State Centers for Sight for outpatient cataract surgery on his right eye. Mukkada, who is аn anesthesiologist for Independent Anesthesiologists, administered anesthetic in the area around Lally‘s right eye. After Mukkada had performed the proсedure, Dr. Jean Noll, who was to perform the cataract surgery, realized that Lally‘s right eye had been injured. The cataract surgery was cancelled, and Lally was referred to Dr. Christopher Devine, a retinal specialist. According to Devine, Lally had lost pressure in his eye as a result of the anesthesia procedure. Devine monitored the condition of Lally‘s eye over several weeks and on August 24, 2006, performed vitrectomy surgery to remove the lens аnd the original cataract from the eye and to clear the blood from the back cavity of the eye. Devine testified that when the vitrectomy was рerformed, Lally‘s retina was completely detached. According to Devine, Lally could be categorized as blind in his right eye.
{¶3} At the conclusion of the defense‘s case, Lally moved for a directed verdict, which was denied by the trial court. The jury found in favor of Mukkada and
{¶4} In his sole assignment of error, Lally asserts that the trial court erred when it denied his motion for a directed verdict and his motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (“JNOV“) and/or a new trial.
{¶5} “The standards applied to motions for directed verdict and motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict are identical.”1 Under
{¶6} The trial court‘s standard for ruling upon a motion for a new trial under
{¶7} Lally contends that Mukkada failed to meet the standard of care for an anesthesiologist because the evidence showed that Mukkada had performed a
{¶8} Despite the confusion in the terms, there was sufficient evidence presented by Mukkada that she had not performed a peribulbar injection but a periobulbar injection. Mukkada described the procedure that she performed as one involving a needle less than .5 inch in length. According to Mukkada, during the procedure, she injected anesthesia in two locatiоns around Lally‘s eye. Flach reviewed Mukkada‘s description of the procedure, and his testimony was consistent with a determination that Mukkada had administered a periobulbar injection.
{¶9} There was sufficient evidence presented that Mukkada had met the standard of care when she performed the procedure. And Lally did not call an anesthesiologist to testify about whether the procedure was properly performed. Although Lally presented evidеnce that his eye had been injured during the procedure, there was evidence presented by Mukkada that an injury could have occurred due to the physiology of Lally‘s eye. And Flach testified that Devine‘s scans of Lally‘s eye in the weeks after the anesthesia procedure must have indicated that Lally‘s rеtina was not detached. According to Flach, Devine would not have performed a vitrectomy if the retina was not in a safe position. Flach stated, “So as best I can tell from the records then, Doctor Devine saw Mr. Lally, he expected to go
{¶10} Lally next cоntends that even if Mukkada presented sufficient evidence that she had performed a periobulbar injection, she still fell below the standard of care because the procedure was not recognized as appropriate for cataract surgery. Lally points to the testimony of Drs. Andrew Dahl and Flach, who testified that they had never seen the procedure used for cataract surgery. But whether the procedure was indicated for cataract surgery did not bear on whether Mukkada performed the injection consistent with the standard of care for an anesthesiologist. Mukkada‘s testimony was thаt she performed the procedure at the request of Dr. Michael Halpin, who was originally scheduled to perform Lally‘s cataract surgery, and Dr. Noll, whо cancelled the surgery after seeing the injury to Lally‘s eye. It did not fall within the purview of her specialty to determine whether the anesthesia procedure chosen by the ophthalmologists was appropriate for cataract surgery.
{¶11} Construing the evidence most strongly in favor of Mukkada, we conсlude that reasonable minds could have differed on whether Mukkada had met the standard of care attributable to anesthesiologists. The trial court properly denied Lally‘s motions for a directed verdict and for a JNOV. Also, we conclude that the record supports the judgment of the trial court that the jury‘s verdict was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion by
Judgment affirmed.
HENDON and CUNNINGHAM, JJ., concur.
Please Note:
The court has recorded its own entry this date.