The appellate court rejected Dr. Durrani’s challenge to the consolidation of the cases, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in trying Sherri Puckett-Morrissette, Derrill Reynolds, Cheryl Wyatt, and Charles Wyatt together. The court held that the cases involved common questions of law or fact because the plaintiffs received similar fusion treatments on the same general area of the spine and presented overlapping expert testimony. The court noted that while there were factual differences, Civ.R. 42(A) does not require identical facts.
The court vacated the jury’s awards for future medical expenses, finding them unsupported by sufficient evidence. The jury had awarded $750,000 to Reynolds, $630,000 to Puckett-Morrissette, and $480,000 to Wyatt for future medical costs. The opinion noted that while plaintiffs offered some expert testimony regarding expected future expenses, the evidence failed to establish the anticipated course of treatment, the likelihood that such treatment would be required, or the projected costs associated with it. The court held that future medical expenses awards may not be purely speculative and require expert testimony regarding the duration, frequency, kind of care, and costs plaintiffs could expect in the future.
The court also reversed the trial court’s denial of a setoff, holding that Dr. Durrani is entitled to credit for plaintiffs’ settlements with other tortfeasors under R.C. 2307.28(A). The cause was remanded to the trial court to determine the specific amount of setoff.
The appellate court affirmed the remaining judgments, including the awards for negligence, lack of informed consent, battery, and fraud. It also upheld the trial court’s award of prejudgment interest, finding no abuse of discretion in determining that plaintiffs made good-faith efforts to settle while Dr. Durrani did not.