Scott v. Durrani

Syllabus

CIV.R. 50 — CIV.R. 59 — TRANSCRIPT — JURY — PLAIN ERROR — EVID.R. 404 — ABUSE OF DISCRETION — SUBPOENA — MOTION TO QUASH — R.C. 2305.252 — CIV.R. 26 — CIV.R. 45: Where only portions of the trial were transcribed for appellate review, the validity of the proceedings must be presumed and an appellate court cannot review the weight of the evidence or review whether an evidentiary error was harmless. The trial court did not commit plain error in failing to provide, in response to a question from the jury during deliberations, the complete response that an expert witness had provided regarding whether defendant doctor had breached the standard of care. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs' Evid.R. 404(B) motion to introduce prior bad acts of defendant doctor in the form of three published opinions from the First District Court of Appeals after determining that the probative value of the evidence was substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect. The trial court did not err in determining that a subpoena served on a nonparty sought to discover material subject to the peer-review privilege in R.C. 2305.252 and in granting a motion to quash the subpoena.