Darnell v. Eastman
Citation | 23 Ohio St.2d 13,261 N.E.2d 114,52 O.O.2d 76 |
Decision Date | 15 July 1970 |
Docket Number | No. 69-437,69-437 |
Parties | , 52 O.O.2d 76 DARNELL, a Minor, Appellant, v. EASTMAN, Appellee. |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Ohio |
Syllabus by the Court
Except as to questions of cause and effect which are so apparent as to be matters of common knowledge, the issue of causal connection between an injury and a specific subsequent physical disability involves a scientific inquiry and must be established by the opinion of medical witnesses competent to express such opinion. In the absence of such medical opinion, it is error to refuse to withdraw that issue from the consideration of the jury.
Plaintiff, a minor, and defendant were involved in a motor vehicle intersection collision on June 4, 1966. In plaintiff's suit for damages for personal injury, brought by his father on his behalf, it was claimed that plaintiff received an injury to his nose, resulting in severe nosebleeds at different times over the next eight months; that these nosebleeds increased in frequency and intensity until terminated by operative procedure on February 27, 1967. This operation was performed by Dr. Baxter. Hospital records containing the history given by plaintiff, the diagnosis ('Deviated Septum, 95% obstruction'), a description of the operation ('submucous resection and Bovie cautery * * * 1t. anterior septum'), and the discharge summary were 'signed' by rubber stamp (script type letters), 'Edward J. Baxter, M. D.' The testimony of the hospital librarian was that the hospital records were 'kept in the ordinary, and usual, and regular practice of the hospital'; that Dr. Baxter's stamp is 'kept in his office,' but that she would have no knowledge as to who had applied the stamp on the hospital records.
Dr. Baxter did not testify. The only medical testimony was that of Dr. Sparks. He testified as to the meaning of the words used in the hospital records, 'deviated septum,' 'Bovie cautery,' and also testified that he had seen plaintiff twice during the month of December 1966, for nosebleeds; that he then made a diagnosis of 'a deviated septum * * * with ulceration of the septum and nosebleed'; and that 'an ulceration is an inflamed or broken area, unhealed area in the mucous membrane.'
The following questions and answers completed the direct testimony of Dr. Sparks:
'Q. As far as you could ascertain, Doctor, was there any evidence of fracture in the septum?
'A. Well, I don't know whether there was a fracture or not.
'Mr. Hayes: Object to any further answer. He has answered the question.
'Court: He may explain his answer, if he wants to.
'Mr. Hayes: Pardon me?
'Court: He may explain his answer, if he wants to.
'A. As I say, I don't know whether the nose was fractured or not. See, I didn't see him when he was originally injured. The deviated septum was from fracture, but I wouldn't have any idea whether it came from injury or not. I would have no way of telling.
'Q. I see. In your opinion, Doctor, the nosebleed, from which this young man suffered, and I believe it is called 'epistaxix,' resulted from the deviated septum, which you saw?
Dr. Sparks was not cross-examined.
The hospital records make reference to an X-ray of plaintiff's nose, taken after the accident, 'which showed no fracture.' There was evidence that plaintiff, prior to the accident, had nosebleeds on some occasions. Plaintiff's testimony was that at the time of the accident he struck his face on the steering wheel and hit his head on the windshield; that his 'lip was bleeding and tore up'; that his nose was 'just a little sore, but I didn't notice it right away'; that he was examined by a doctor who 'looked at my gum'; that the nose 'bled the very next day,' but that ; that nosebleeds 'occurred real mild at first, like it was once every two weeks,' then gradually 'once every day' until he consulted Dr. Sparks; that some time after being given a 'chemical treatment' by Dr. Sparks, 'I had a cold, and sneezing one afternoon; it started bleeding again * * *'; and that when it continued after he got over the cold he went to see Dr. Baxter.
The jury returned its verdict in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $17,500. Upon appeal to the Court of Appeals, the judgment was reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial, one judge dissenting. In so doing the Court of Appeals overruled defendant's assignment of error No. 2 (); sustained assignment of error No. 1 ( ); and sustained assignment of error No. 3 ( ).
The cause is now before this court pursuant to the allowance of a motion to certify the record.
Freeman & Freeman, and Herbert R. Freeman, Norwalk, for appellant.
Thomas B. Hayes, Sandusky, for appellee.
As briefed and argued to this court, the basic issue of law to be dcided concerns the admissibility of those portions of the hospital records prepared by or under the supervision of Dr. Baxter. Although the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Conde v. Velsicol Chemical Corp., C2-85-638.
...alleged and the claimed physical injury by the opinion of medical witnesses competent to express such opinions. Darnell v. Eastman, 23 Ohio St.2d 13, 16, 261 N.E.2d 114 (1970) ("The issue of causal connection between an injury and a specific subsequent physical disability involves a scienti......
-
Valentine v. PPG Industries, Inc., 2004 Ohio 4521 (OH 8/20/2004)
...cause of a medical condition, here, a brain tumor, expert medical testimony ordinarily is necessary. See, e.g., Darnell v. Eastman (1970), 23 Ohio St.2d 13, 261 N.E.2d 114, syllabus. Furthermore, to prove that a toxic substance caused the plaintiff's medical condition, the plaintiff must es......
-
Brondes Ford, Inc. v. Habitec Sec.
...of a layperson. Ramage v. Cent. Ohio Emergency Servs., Inc., 64 Ohio St.3d 97, 103, 592 N.E.2d 828 (1992), and Darnell v. Eastman, 23 Ohio St.2d 13, 261 N.E.2d 114 (1970), syllabus. {¶ 136} An expert testifying on the issue of proximate cause must state an opinion with respect to the causat......
-
Clough v. Watkins
...and effect relationship is "so apparent as to be matters of common knowledge," then expert testimony is unnecessary. Darnell v. Eastman, 23 Ohio St.2d 13, 261 N.E.2d 114, syllabus (1970). When, however, "the issue of causal connection between an injury and a specific subsequent physical dis......