Skip to main content
· 4/22/2026

Puckett-Morrissette v. Durrani

Citations

  • 2026 Ohio 1444

Syllabus

CIV.R. 42 – CIV.R. 50(B) – CIV.R. 59(A) – COMMON QUESTIONS OF LAW OR FACT – CONSOLIDATED TRIALS – EVID.R. 601 – EVID.R. 702 – EXPERT TESTIMONY – FUTURE MEDICAL DAMAGES – JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT – JURY INSTRUCTIONS – MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL – PREJUDGMENT INTEREST – SETOFF – WAIVER: The trial court did not abuse its discretion under Civ.R. 42 by joining plaintiffs' claims for trial where plaintiffs proceeded under similar legal theories, underwent similar surgeries performed by defendant doctor, and presented similar expert witnesses, thus creating common questions of law and fact. [See CONCURRENCE: Concurring in the majority's opinion on this issue but writing separately regarding the proper postjudgment assessment of prejudice from the joinder of trials that reveals no reversible error.] The trial court did not err in admitting testimonial evidence from plaintiffs' experts as defendants' challenges concerning whether an expert was qualified to provide testimony under Evid.R. 601 and whether an expert's testimony was admissible under Evid.R. 702 were meritless. Because defendants consented to a resolution of the issue of past medical damages in the trial court, defendants' appellate arguments regarding past medical damages are waived. The trial court erred by awarding future medical expenses, because the record lacks expert testimony, as to each plaintiff, establishing the anticipated course of future treatment, the likelihood that treatment will be required, and the projected costs associated with that treatment sufficient to sustain the awards of future medical expenses. The trial court erred in denying defendants' request for a setoff because intentional tortfeasors are entitled to a setoff under R.C. 2307.28(A). The trial court did not err in awarding plaintiffs prejudgment interest, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that plaintiffs made good faith efforts to settle and defendants failed to make good faith efforts to sett

Judges: Nestor

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.