R.T. v. Knobeloch

Summary

The Tenth District Court of Appeals of Ohio denied appellants' motion to certify conflicts concerning expert competency under Ohio Evidence Rule 601(D) and the expert-testimony requirements for lack-of-informed-consent claims. The court held that no conflict existed with the cited decisions because the relevant testimony and judgments were distinguishable.

Holdings

1. A conflict may be certified only when there is an actual conflict between appellate districts on a rule of law, involving the same question, rather than merely inconsistent reasoning or factual distinctions.
2. There was no conflict with Hunt because Dr. Kaye was not permitted to offer pediatric-psychiatry standard-of-care opinions, while his permitted non-standard-of-care opinions concerning pharmacology and drugs were not subject to Evid.R. 601(D)'s medical-liability competency requirements; Dr. Arredondo separately satisfied those requirements.
3. There was no conflict with Culp because Culp did not establish that physician testimony is invariably necessary for every element of a lack-of-informed-consent claim, and the present case contained expert testimony regarding the material risk and causation; expert testimony was not required to determine whether a nonexistent disclosure covered every material risk.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Tenth District's prior judgment conflicted with Hunt v. Crossroads Psychiatric & Psychological Center concerning the minimum competency requirements for medical-liability experts under Evid.R. 601(D).
2. Whether the Tenth District's prior judgment conflicted with Culp v. Olukoga concerning the necessity of expert testimony in a lack-of-informed-consent claim.
3. Whether the alleged differences between the decisions constituted conflicts in judgments on the same rule of law rather than factual or analytical differences sufficient to warrant certification.

Disposition

other