Skip to main content

R.T. v. Knobeloch

Ohio Ct. App.April 24, 2018No. 16AP-809Cited 8 times
Plaintiff WinAmerican Health Network, Inc.$1,028,539.51 awarded
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Tyack
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
jury verdict

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Failure to Accommodate

Outcome

Jury found Dr. Knobeloch negligent and liable for lack of informed consent in prescribing Lamictal to a six-year-old patient who developed Stevens-Johnson Syndrome. Verdict awarded $1,578,539.51, reduced to $1,028,539.51 after remittitur. Appellate court affirmed the judgment.

Excerpt

Defendant doctor appeals a medical malpractice decision. We found that the doctor failed to disclose the risks with medical treatment, the plaintiff expert was qualified to testify of the causal connection between the medical treatment and harm, the trial court properly gave informed consent jury instructions and properly excluded failure to mitigate instructions, there is sufficient evidence to suppot the jury's verdict and the trial court properly conducted the trial and the determination of expert witness. Judgment affirmed.

What This Ruling Means

**R.T. v. Knobeloch: Doctor Failed to Warn About Serious Drug Risks** This case involved a six-year-old patient who was prescribed Lamictal, a medication, by Dr. Knobeloch. The child developed Stevens-Johnson Syndrome, a serious and potentially life-threatening skin condition that can be caused by certain medications. The family sued, claiming the doctor was negligent and failed to properly inform them about the risks of this medication before prescribing it. The jury found that Dr. Knobeloch was negligent and did not obtain proper "informed consent" - meaning he failed to adequately explain the potential dangers of the medication to the patient's family. The court awarded over $1 million in damages to compensate for the harm caused. When the doctor appealed, the higher court upheld the decision, agreeing that the doctor should have done more to warn about the medication's risks. **Why This Matters for Workers:** While this was a medical malpractice case, it reinforces an important principle that applies to workplace safety: professionals have a duty to inform people about serious risks. In employment settings, this means employers should clearly communicate workplace hazards and safety procedures. Workers have the right to be informed about dangers they may face on the job.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Similar Rulings

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. St. Francis Xavier Parochial School and St. Francis Xavier Church
D.C. CircuitJul 1997
Remanded
People in re S.L. and A.L
COLOCTAPPDec 2017

The Rio Blanco County Department of Human Services (Department) became involved with the parents in this case as a result of concerns about the children's welfare due to the condition of the family home, the parents' use of methamphetamine, and criminal cases involving the parents. Attempts at voluntary services failed, and on the Department's petition for dependency and neglect, the district court ultimately terminated the parents' rights. On appeal, the parents contended that the Department failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify them with their children. Specifically, the parents contended that the Department did not give them sufficient time to complete the services under their treatment plans and failed to accommodate their drug testing needs. The termination hearing was not held until more than a year after the motion to terminate was filed. For nine months before the motion to terminate was filed, the Department provided numerous services to the parents, including substance abuse therapy, therapeutic visitation supervision, drug abuse monitoring, and a parental capacity evaluation. The Department also provided counseling for the children. Both parents missed drug tests and tested positive during the testing period, and both were arrested for possession of methamphetamine during the pendency of the case. The Department made reasonable accommodations to meet the parents' needs and the parents had sufficient time to comply with their treatment plans. The record supports the trial court's findings that termination was appropriate because (1) the court-approved appropriate treatment plan had not been complied with by the parents or had not been successful in rehabilitating them (2) the parents were unfit and (3) the conduct or condition of the parents was unlikely to change within a reasonable time. Father also contended that the trial court's decision to interview the 9-year-old twin children together in chambers fundamentally and seriously affected the basi

Defendant Win
Shelley Savage v. Glendale Union High School, District No. 205, Maricopa County
9th CircuitSep 2003
Plaintiff Win
James Chappel v. Laboratory Corporation of America, AKA National Health Lab
9th CircuitNov 2000
Mixed Result
Wright
10th CircuitAug 2001
Defendant Win

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.