Blinn v. Balint

Summary

The Ninth District Court of Appeals of Ohio affirmed a jury verdict in favor of Robert Blinn, who alleged that injuries to his rotator cuff resulted from a vehicle collision caused by Mark Balint. The court held that the trial court properly admitted the defense medical expert’s testimony under Ohio Evid.R. 703 and 702(C), concluding that the expert’s opinion relied in major part on perceived or properly admitted medical information and reliable methodology.

Holdings

1. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Dr. Gordon's opinion because Evid.R. 703 is satisfied when an expert bases an opinion, at least in major part, on facts or data personally perceived by the expert or admitted into evidence. Personally viewing an MRI constitutes perception under the rule, and the x-ray report's contents were introduced through trial testimony.
2. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding Dr. Gordon's testimony reliable under Evid.R. 702(C). The rule concerns whether the expert used scientifically valid principles and methods, not whether the expert's ultimate conclusion was correct.
3. Any assumed error in admitting the medical billing expert's testimony under Evid.R. 703 and 705 was harmless because the jury's $200 award demonstrated that it did not rely on that expert's valuation of Blinn's medical expenses.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting orthopedic expert testimony under Evid.R. 703 and 705 when the expert relied on medical records, an MRI personally viewed by him, and an x-ray report whose underlying x-ray was not admitted.
2. Whether the orthopedic expert's testimony was based on reliable scientific, technical, or specialized information under Evid.R. 702(C).
3. Whether admission of the defense medical billing expert's testimony violated Evid.R. 703 and 705 and, if so, whether the error was harmless.

Disposition

affirmed