Badawi v. Ohio State Univ. Wexner Med. Ctr.

Citations

• 247 N.E.3d 999
• 2024 Ohio 2503

Syllabus

The Court of Claims did not abuse its discretion in prohibiting rebuttal testimony from witness after rendering pretrial ruling allowing such testimony only under certain circumstances that did not occur at trial. The court did not improperly rely on a medical text to reach its judgment because the text is a learned treatise under Evid.R. 803(18) and was discussed by expert witnesses at trial. Nothing in the court's final decision suggests the court reversed its earlier directed verdicts on informed consent and negligent training. The court did not abuse its discretion in limiting testimony of doctor who was member of the hospital's peer review committee because the hospital repeatedly invoked the peer review committee privilege during the doctor's deposition and the doctor was unable to separate out independent source knowledge from information he learned through work on the committee. Even if the trial court erred in finding one of three medical providers acted negligently, such error would be harmless because the hospital is already liable for the negligent acts of the other two providers whose negligence was not challenged on appeal. Finally, expert testimony was not necessary to establish permanency of parents' mental injury because it is self-evident from the circumstances of the case. However, even if such expert testimony would have been necessary, parents' treating psychologist provided sufficient testimony. Judgment affirmed.