Miles v. Cleveland Clinic Health Sys.-E. Region

Summary

The Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed and remanded an order compelling payment of an expert witness's deposition fee in a medical-negligence and wrongful-death action. The court held that the trial court retained jurisdiction to resolve the collateral issue of deposition costs after final judgment and dismissal of remaining claims. It also concluded that the appellant failed to establish that the $3,500 fee was unreasonable or unsupported, while remanding for entry of an order requiring payment of the reduced balance of $2,000.

Holdings

1. A trial court retains jurisdiction after final judgment or dismissal to decide collateral issues unrelated to the merits, including expert witness fees and deposition costs. The trial court therefore had jurisdiction to rule on Dr. Wallen's motion to compel.
2. Civ.R. 26(B)(7)(c) requires disclosure of an expert's compensation, but attaching the fee schedule to the expert report satisfied the disclosure requirement in this case. Even if the fee schedule's attachment rather than inclusion in the report violated the rule, the rule's stated consequence is that the expert may not testify; it does not eliminate the obligation to pay the expert's deposition fee.
3. Civ.R. 26(B)(7)(h)(iii), which requires payment of a reasonable fee for time spent in deposition, did not apply because Dr. Pinar was identified as a testifying expert rather than an expert employed only for trial preparation.
4. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by compelling Miles to pay the deposition fee. Miles knew of the flat fee before taking the deposition, questioned the expert about it, failed to challenge its reasonableness before the deposition, and presented no evidence beyond her own assertions that the fee was unreasonable.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court retained subject-matter jurisdiction to decide a motion to compel payment of an expert deposition fee after final judgment and dismissal of the remaining claims.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by compelling payment of the expert deposition fee under Civ.R. 26(B)(7)(c).
3. Whether the compelled fee was excessive, disproportionate, unsupported, or otherwise contrary to Civ.R. 26(B)(1) and (7).

Disposition

affirmed_and_remanded