Jones v. Ohio State Univ. Wexner Med. Ctr.

The trial court erred in entering judgment for defendant because the greater weight of competent, credible evidence regarding proximate cause established that the decedent's death was the natural and probable consequence of defendant's employee's failure to supervise the decedent's care.

Wrongful death survivorship medical malpractice standard of care causation magistrate Civ.R. 53. Plaintiff was the surviving spouse of a decedent who suffered a pulmonary embolism six days after he was discharged from defendant's hospital. The pulmonary embolism ultimately led to decedent's death, and plaintiff brought a wrongful death and survivorship action under a theory of medical malpractice. Upon considering the testimony of fact witnesses and expert witnesses, the magistrate determined that plaintiff did not prove medical malpractice by a preponderance of the evidence. The magistrate found that defendant's employees did not breach the standard of care when treating decedent, as their treatment was consistent with decedent's symptoms and test results. The magistrate further found that plaintiff failed to prove that the alleged breach of the standard of care—the failure to order an ultrasound to test for deep vein thrombosis—proximately caused decedent's death. The magistrate found insufficient evidence to establish that deep vein thrombosis would have been detected at any point during decedent's hospitalization.

Negligence liability duty open and obvious causation comparative negligence damages parental consortium magistrate. Plaintiff brought this negligence action after suffering injuries on Defendant's premises. Plaintiff's son also asserted a claim for the loss of parental consortium. Plaintiff suffered a puncture injury to her leg after tripping on a curb and landing on a metal bolt protruding from a mulched area in Defendant's parking lot. The magistrate found that Defendant owed a duty of care to Plaintiff as an invitee. Plaintiff did not exceed the scope of her invitation by walking through a mulched area of the parking lot, because the area was obviously worn down by pedestrian use and Defendant's employees walked through the mulched area. Defendant did not breach a duty of care to Plaintiff with respect to the curb, because the danger of the curb should have been open and obvious to the Plaintiff. However, Defendant did breach a duty of care with respect to the protruding bolt, because Defendant knew or should have known it presented a danger. Defendant's breach of care was a proximate cause of Plaintiff's injury. However, Plaintiff's comparative negligence warranted a 50 percent reduction of any award for damages. The magistrate determined that Plaintiff was entitled to damages for medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering. The magistrate also determined Plaintiff's son was entitled to damages for the loss of parental consortium.