Background
Mary Zurieck and Samantha Hamilton sued spine surgeon Abubakar Atiq Durrani and the Center for Advanced Spine Technologies, Inc., alleging that Durrani performed medically unwarranted procedures without adequate informed consent and misrepresented the need for surgery. After a consolidated trial, the jury found for both plaintiffs on negligence, lack of informed consent, and fraudulent-misrepresentation claims, while finding for the defendants on battery.
The jury awarded Hamilton $1,601,500 and Zurieck $289,000 in compensatory damages, plus punitive damages and attorney fees. The trial court applied Ohio’s statutory limits on noneconomic damages, reducing Hamilton’s compensatory award to $501,500 and Zurieck’s to $251,000. It also awarded prejudgment interest but denied the defendants’ request to offset amounts the plaintiffs had received in settlements with other tortfeasors.
The Court’s Holding
The First District held that Hamilton’s claims were not barred by the medical-claim statute of repose. Although her Hamilton County complaint was filed outside the ordinary repose period, the former version of Ohio’s absent-defendant tolling statute preserved her claims after Durrani left the jurisdiction. A 2024 amendment providing that such tolling does not apply to the medical statute of repose could not govern Hamilton’s earlier-filed complaint because the legislature did not expressly make the amendment retroactive.
The court concluded that consolidating the plaintiffs’ cases was improper because their claims depended on individualized facts and could not be resolved through common answers. The error was harmless, however, because the defendants did not demonstrate prejudice and the verdicts showed that the jury evaluated the cases separately. The court also upheld the absent-defendant instruction, the challenged expert testimony, and the prejudgment-interest awards.
The court reversed only on settlement setoff. It held that Durrani and CAST were entitled to credit for the plaintiffs’ settlements with other defendants and remanded for the trial court to calculate the appropriate setoff amounts. The judgments were affirmed in all other respects.
Key Takeaways
- The 2024 amendment excluding medical statutes of repose from absent-defendant tolling did not apply retroactively to Hamilton’s previously filed claims.
- Consolidation was erroneous because each plaintiff’s claims required individualized proof, but reversal was unwarranted without demonstrated prejudice.
- Durrani and CAST were entitled to settlement setoffs, requiring a remand to determine the amounts.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that the 2024 change to Ohio’s absent-defendant tolling law does not extinguish medical claims filed before the amendment when the former statute preserved them. It also illustrates that improper consolidation does not automatically require a new trial; the appellant must show that the error affected substantial rights.
For damages practice, the ruling reinforces that settlements with other tortfeasors may reduce the amount recoverable from remaining defendants, even when the underlying verdict and prejudgment-interest award otherwise survive appeal.