Summary
The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed a jury verdict for the Cleveland Clinic Foundation in a wrongful-death and medical-malpractice action. The court held that the plaintiff invited or forfeited any error concerning testimony about vasopressors and hypoperfusion, and that the challenged testimony was harmless because the cause of the bowel ischemia was not relevant to the trial issue identified in the prior appeal. The court also rejected claims involving undisclosed causation theories and limitations on expert testimony.
Court
Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth Appellate District, Cuyahoga County
Jurisdiction
Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth Appellate District, Cuyahoga County
Decision date
March 12, 2026
Docket number
114990
Disposition
affirmed
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court erred by permitting or failing to cure allegedly undisclosed testimony by treating physicians concerning vasopressors, hypoperfusion, and the cause of bowel ischemia.
- Whether Kittis invited or forfeited any evidentiary error by eliciting and pursuing the vasopressor testimony on cross-examination without a timely objection or request for a limiting instruction.
- Whether any error concerning the vasopressor testimony was harmless because the cause of the bowel ischemia was irrelevant to the theory of breach remaining for trial and did not affect a substantial right.
- Whether the trial court improperly limited Kittis's expert testimony concerning the echocardiogram and hypoperfusion.
Holdings
- Kittis could not base appellate error on the vasopressor testimony because she did not timely object when the testimony first arose, failed to seek a curative instruction, and then elicited extensive follow-up testimony about vasopressors and their effect on the bowel.
- Even assuming the admission of the vasopressor testimony was error, it was harmless because the testimony did not affect a substantial right.
- The claimed limitation on Dr. Brooks's testimony did not warrant reversal because the limitation was consistent with Kittis's own argument that the testimony concerned medical facts rather than a new opinion on causation or the standard of care, and the court permitted testimony about the general medical facts.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…