The National Trial Lawyers
  • Home
    • Meet Our Team
    • Contact Us
    • Mission & Goals
    • FAQ
  • Webinars
  • News
  • Membership Directory
    • Top 100 Map – Civil Plaintiff
    • Top 100 Map – Criminal Defense
    • Top 40 Under 40 Map – Civil Plaintiff
    • Top 40 Under 40 Map – Criminal Defense
  • Top 100
    • Civil Plaintiff Officers / Executive Committee
    • Criminal Defense Officers / Executive Committee
    • Benefits
    • About
    • Top 100 Presidents Message
    • Diplomat
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
    • Top 100 Badge
  • Top 40
    • Civil Plaintiff Officers / Executive Committee
    • Criminal Defense Officers / Executive Committee
    • Top 40 Under 40 Trial Academy Bootcamp
    • Benefits
    • About
    • Top 40 Presidents Message
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
    • Top 40 Badge
  • Specialty Assoc
    • About
    • Shop
    • Officers
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
  • Nominate
    • Top 100
    • Top 40
    • Specialty Association
    • Trial Lawyer Hall of Fame
    • Trial Lawyer of the Year
    • Trial Team of the Year
    • America’s Most Influential Trial Lawyer
    • America’s Most Influential Law Firm
    • Lifetime Achievement Award
  • Shop
  • Magazine
    • A-List
  • Education and Networking Agenda
    • Trial Lawyers Summit
    • Top 40 Under 40 Trial Academy Boot Camp
    • Mass Torts Made Perfect
    • The Lanier Trial Academy Master Class 6.0
    • The Business Of Law
    • Webinars
  • Hall of Fame
    • Trial Lawyer Hall of Fame

New Trial Ordered After Ohio Judge Taints Jury in Med-Mal Case

Posted on May 12, 2015 by Eleanor Smith

New Trial Ordered After Ohio Judge Taints JuryThe Franklin County Court of Appeals recently ordered a new trial in the case of a man who received a $2.8 million malpractice verdict against Columbus, Ohio’s 213-bed tertiary care teaching facility, OhioHealth Doctors Hospital, in 2013. The new trial was ordered after the attorneys for the hospital discovered that the trial judge had secretly thrown out the jury’s first or two verdicts upon deciding the jurors had not deliberated properly.

The plaintiff, Michael Dillon, is a West Columbus, Ohio, man who was restrained by a patient-care assistant at the hospital and suffered a broken neck resulting in paralyzation during his 2009 stay at the hospital.

He arrived at the hospital via rescue squad after he stopped taking medication for a psychiatric condition and became disoriented. He filed suit one year later against OhioHealth, claiming an employee caused severe injury to his cervical spine by applying “excessive force to his neck and body” while putting him in a restraint hold.

Rejected first verdict

On appeal, attorneys for Dillon argued against the validity of the second verdict, stating that the trial judge, Common Pleas Judge Laurel Beatty, followed the law in rejecting the original verdict.

The hospital brought the appeal after determining the original verdict was in its favor, and sought to have this first verdict enforced. However, Judge Jennifer Brunner, writing for the three-judge panel of the appeals court, found that Judge Beatty had improperly discarded the first verdict, “irreparably tainting” the trial by allowing the second verdict to stand.

Judges Gary Tyack and Betsy Luper Schuster concurred in the decision, in which Judge Brunner wrote, “We find the trial to have been of such character in its irregularity to warrant a completely new trial as to all claims.”

In a trial that lasted nearly four weeks, the eight-member jury reached a verdict on May 2, 2013. Six jurors signed a form regardint the first question in the case, finding the hospital was negligent. However, a slightly different group of six jurors signed the second form, finding that the negligence did not cause Dillon’s injuries – a verdict in favor of OhioHealth.

Judge didn’t inform the attorneys

The error arose when, after reviewing the forms, Judge Beatty instructed the bailiff to allow the jurors who voted “yes” on the first verdict question to consider the second question. Judge Beatty proceeded without informing the attorneys for either party, and after four more hours of deliberations, the jurors returned a second verdict, this time unanimously in favor of Dillon.

The original verdict, the largest issued in Franklin County since 1985, cannot be enforced because the attorneys were not given the opportunity to poll the jurors about it, and it was never read in open court.

Dillon, who had hoped the jury award would allow him to be cared for in his mother’s home, continues to live in a nursing home, using a wheelchair. Acknowledging the nearly month-long first trial, Dillon’s attorney believes negotiating a settlement in the case “makes sense as a practical matter.” But, as of April 10, 2015, there have been no settlement talks with OhioHealth while the appeal is spending. Dillon’s attorney, J.R. Thomas, said, “It takes two. I can’t speak for OhioHealth.”

The case caption is Dillon v. OhioHealth Corp., 1015-Ohio-1389 and can be viewed here.

Posted in Blog, Personal Injury

Comments are closed.

News Categories

Read about other Top Jury Verdicts

Salmon Purchasers Reach an $85 Million Price Fixing Settlement

Salmon Purchasers Reach an $85 Million Price Fixing Settlement

According to Reuters, who had seen the proposed settlement after it was filed on 25 May, the settlement will r[Read More...]
Ford Agrees to Pay $19 Million to Settle False Fuel Economy and Payload Claims

Ford Agrees to Pay $19 Million to Settle False Fuel Economy and Payload Claims

Ford Motor Company as agreed to a $19.2 million multistate settlement among 40 attorneys general that concluded an investigat[Read More...]
Total Settlement in Surfside Condo Collapse Tops $1 Billion

Total Settlement in Surfside Condo Collapse Tops $1 Billion

The proposed settlement reached nearly a year after the catastrophic Surfside building collapse along the South Flo[Read More...]
UCLA Will Pay Nearly $700 Million in Abuse Lawsuits

UCLA Will Pay Nearly $700 Million in Abuse Lawsuits

The University of California system announced Tuesday it will pay nearly $375 million to more than 300 women who said they we[Read More...]
Things to Consider When You Sue an Insurance Provider

Things to Consider When You Sue an Insurance Provider

We are all too acquainted with insurance coverage in our everyday lives. According to Investopedia, everyone should have[Read More...]

#LegalNews

@@TheNTLtop100

Contact Us | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy

Attorney information and content provided on this website is provided for the benefit of members of The National Trial Lawyers and as a public service by Legal Associations Management, Inc. The website and all data are the property of Legal Associations Management, Inc. Data, including without limitation attorney information and content, on the site may not be mined, sold, or used commercially for any purpose without the explicit written consent of Legal Associations Management, Inc. This site may not be accessed by any automated program for extracting data for any use. By accessing and using the site you agree that you will not develop, support or use software, devices, scripts, robots, or any other means or processes (including crawlers, browser plug-ins and add-ons, or any other technology) to scrape data or otherwise copy profiles and other data. Unauthorized use or attempted unauthorized use of this system may subject you to both civil and criminal penalties.