Background
R.R. was born in January 2025 with Spina Bifida, VP shunted Hydrocephalus, Chiari 2 Decompression, neurogenic bowel and bladder, Pierre Robin Sequence, Scoliosis, and bilateral vocal cord paralysis, requiring 24-hour care. The Portage County Department of Job and Family Services filed abuse, neglect, and dependency allegations after X-rays revealed eight healing rib fractures during a routine medical appointment. The prospective adoptive parents, who had been caring for R.R. since his release from the NICU, denied causing the injuries.
At trial, the county sought to introduce testimony from Dr. McPherson, a child abuse specialist who had reviewed R.R.’s medical records. The trial court excluded Dr. McPherson’s testimony because the county failed to provide a written report as required by Civ.R. 26(B)(7)(c) and Dr. McPherson did not qualify for the healthcare provider exception in Civ.R. 26(B)(7)(d). After trial, the court dismissed all allegations, finding the county had not proven abuse, neglect, or dependency by clear and convincing evidence.
The Court’s Holding
The Eleventh District affirmed on both assignments of error. First, the trial court properly excluded Dr. McPherson’s expert testimony. The county failed to provide a written expert report as required by Civ.R. 26(B)(7)(c), and Dr. McPherson — a reviewing physician who had never provided direct medical care to R.R. — did not qualify for the healthcare provider exception in Civ.R. 26(B)(7)(d), which is limited to witnesses who have “provided medical . . . care” and who testify about matters in their own treatment records.
Second, even without Dr. McPherson’s testimony, the evidence supported the trial court’s dismissal. The court credited testimony from R.R.’s treating physicians, including a pediatric orthopedic surgeon and other specialists, who opined that R.R.’s complex medical conditions could have made him susceptible to fractures and that the injuries were not necessarily indicative of inflicted trauma given his fragile medical status.
Key Takeaways
- Under Civ.R. 26(B)(7)(c), failure to provide a written expert report is grounds for exclusion of expert testimony; the healthcare provider exception in Civ.R. 26(B)(7)(d) applies only to witnesses who directly provided care and testify about their own records.
- In cases involving medically fragile children, rib fractures alone may not constitute clear and convincing evidence of abuse when the child’s underlying conditions create susceptibility to fractures.
- County agencies bear the burden of proving abuse by clear and convincing evidence, and trial courts have broad discretion in weighing competing medical opinions.
Why It Matters
This decision has significant implications for both child welfare practice and civil litigation. The expert-witness ruling reinforces the importance of strict compliance with Civ.R. 26(B)(7)(c) disclosure requirements — even in urgent child welfare cases. The substantive holding highlights the complexity of abuse determinations involving medically fragile children and may inform how agencies approach similar cases where a child’s medical conditions could alternatively explain injuries. Family law and juvenile practitioners should note the court’s emphasis on the treating physician distinction for the Civ.R. 26(B)(7)(d) exception.