Shields v. Bur. of Workers' Comp.

Citations

• 2023 Ohio 1368

Syllabus

Workers' compensation claim jury verdict for claimant unreliable expert medical testimony inadmissible expert medical testimony inadequate review of medical records insufficient medical history Evid.R. 703 Evid.R. 705 hypothetical questions Evid.R. 611 leading questions Evid.R. 702 weight of the evidence versus admissibility of the evidence credibility and weight of expert's testimony are jury questions Civ.R. 50 directed verdict judgment notwithstanding the verdict flow-through injury proximate cause competing medical expert opinions Civ.R. 59 and motion for new trial. The trial court did not err in admitting expert witness testimony where the issues raised by defense counsel related to the credibility of the doctor's opinion rather than the admissibility of the evidence. Where claimant introduced sufficient testimony to demonstrate proximate cause of his flow-through injury, the trial court did not err when it denied defendant-appellant's motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Likewise, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied RTA's motion for new trial pursuant to Civ.R. 59(A)(6), and the trial court did not err when it denied RTA's motion for new trial under Civ.R. 59(A)(7) and (9).