Calandra v. Rowbotham

Summary

The Sixth District Court of Appeals of Ohio affirmed the denial of Nicoline M. Calandra’s motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial following a medical negligence trial. The court held that the jury could weigh the competing evidence, including cross-examination of Calandra’s experts and medical records indicating that her concussion symptoms had resolved or were attributable to other conditions. The jury’s award included past economic and noneconomic damages but no future damages.

Holdings

1. The trial court properly denied judgment notwithstanding the verdict because, construing the evidence in Rowbotham's favor, substantial evidence supported the jury's damages award and reasonable minds could reach different conclusions regarding the extent and causation of Calandra's claimed injuries and treatment.
2. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial under Civ.R. 59(A)(6), because the jury's limited damages award was supported by substantial, competent, and credible evidence.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court erred in denying Calandra's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict where the defense presented no expert medical testimony disputing the causal connection between the accident and her claimed ongoing treatment.
2. Whether the trial court erred in denying Calandra's motion for a new trial because the jury's limitation of damages was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Disposition

affirmed