Scott v. Durrani

Summary

The First District Court of Appeals of Ohio affirmed a Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas judgment in favor of Dr. Abubakar Atiq Durrani in a medical-malpractice action. The court rejected the Scotts’ challenges concerning judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial, admission of prior-act evidence under Evid.R. 404(B), and quashing of a subpoena directed to former hospital defendants. The court also held that the incomplete trial transcript prevented full review of the manifest-weight challenge.

Holdings

1. When an appellant challenges a judgment as against the weight of the evidence, the appellant must provide all portions of the transcript relevant to the contested issues. Without a complete transcript, the appellate court presumes the validity of the trial court's proceedings and cannot conduct a full manifest-weight review.
2. Any error in allowing defense expert testimony that rotational instability justified the C1-2 fusion would warrant reversal only if it was not harmless and affected the plaintiffs' substantial rights. Because the record was incomplete, the court could not determine prejudice and therefore rejected the claim.
3. The trial court's failure to include Dr. Tobler's additional testimony that unilateral fixation breached the standard of care did not constitute plain error requiring reversal.
4. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding prior appellate opinions involving Durrani because, even if relevant for a nonpropensity purpose, their probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
5. The trial court properly quashed the subpoena seeking Durrani's privilege-suspension records and credentialing applications because the subpoenaed documents fell within Ohio's statutory peer-review privilege.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court erred in denying judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial on the fraudulent-misrepresentation claim when the appellate record contained only a partial trial transcript.
2. Whether the trial court improperly permitted defense expert testimony concerning rotational instability and whether any resulting error was harmless.
3. Whether the trial court committed plain error by failing to provide the jury with all of Dr. Tobler's testimony concerning breach of the standard of care in response to a deliberation question.
4. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by excluding three prior appellate opinions involving Durrani under Evid.R. 404(B) and Evid.R. 403(A).
5. Whether the trial court erred in quashing a subpoena to West Chester Hospital and UC Health based on the peer-review privilege.

Disposition

affirmed