Branch v. Cleveland Clinic Foundation

Summary

The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the Eighth District Court of Appeals and reinstated a jury verdict for the Cleveland Clinic Foundation in a medical-malpractice action arising from a stroke during deep-brain stimulation surgery. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting late-produced demonstrative evidence, limiting closing-argument references to the clinic’s failure to retain a surgical plan, or giving a different-methods medical-malpractice jury instruction.

Holdings

1. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the clinic to use the three-dimensional computer simulation because Branch had access to the same underlying surgical notes and an adequate opportunity to cross-examine the clinic's doctors concerning the exhibit.
2. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by restricting Branch's closing argument concerning the missing surgery plan because the clinic produced written surgical records, the plan was deleted pursuant to the clinic's standard practice rather than shown to have been willfully destroyed, and Branch had already referred to the missing records repeatedly.
3. The trial court properly gave the different-methods instruction because the evidence showed that more than one medical approach to planning and performing the surgery was acceptable or potentially preferable, and the dispute required the jury to evaluate competing medical methods rather than merely decide whether the surgeon struck the ventricle.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the clinic to use a three-dimensional demonstrative exhibit disclosed to Branch's counsel shortly before the testifying expert used it.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by limiting Branch's closing argument concerning an adverse inference from the clinic's failure to preserve a computerized surgery plan.
3. Whether the trial court properly instructed the jury that using one acceptable medical approach rather than another does not necessarily constitute negligence.

Disposition

reversed