Mast v. Doctor's Hospital North, 76-56
| Decision Date | 30 June 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 76-56,76-56 |
| Citation | 350 N.E.2d 429,46 Ohio St.2d 539,75 O.O.2d 556 |
| Parties | , 75 O.O.2d 556 MAST, Appellant, v. DOCTOR'S HOSPITAL NORTH, Appellee. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
On December 10, 1971, Donald H. Mast, plaintiff-appellant herein, was admitted into Doctor's Hospital North, defendant-appellee herein, for diagnostic work to determine the nature and extent of arthritic problems affecting his neck and left arm. Pre-mye-logram medication included an injection of nembutal and/or demerol in the right arm. Immediately upon receiving the injection, plaintiff experienced a sensation going down his right arm to the tip of his fingers which was later characterized in the defendant's records as paresthesia.
On December 5, 1972, plaintiff instituted an action in the Court of Common Pleas against the defendant. Plaintiff alleges that he '* * * has been caused to suffer injury, pain, paralysis, discomfort, anguish, restriction of activities, and has undergone medical treatment; that his injuries are permanent, and that he will suffer future pain, disability and will undergo future medical treatment and incur future medical expenses * * * (and that) by reason of the above he has been damaged in the sum of * * * $200,000.'
Nearly all physicians who testified at trial (including defendant' expert) agreed that, as a result of the injection, Mast had sustained right radial nerve palsy and paralysis.
From the time of the injection, in December of 1971, until he returned to work March 19, 1973, Mast's condition improved from almost total paralysis of the arm to a degree of disability which was estimated variously by the plaintiff's expert as 30 percent loss of use, any by the defendant's expert as 15 percent of total disability. Mast testified that his condition improved during the first year, but thereafter remained at almost the same level through the time of trial, 2 3/4 years after the injection. His physician recorded 'increased pain' many months after the incident. At the time of the injection, Mast had a life expectancy of almost 20 years. There was evidence of a loss of earnings of approximately $14,000, and of diminished earning capacity.
The jury returned a verdict, signed by seven of its eight members, finding 'the issues' in favor of plaintiff and determining the damages sustained by plaintiff as $196,160. Judgment was entered upon the verdict.
An addition, all jurors answered, 'yes' to the following interrogatories submitted pursuant to Civ.R. 49:
Defendant's motion for a new trial, alleging primarily that the verdict was excessive, was overruled by the trial court.
Upon appeal, defendant assigned as error that the verdict was excessive as being contrary to the weight of the evidence, citing Schendel v. Bradford (1922), 106 Ohio St. 387, 140 N.E. 155.
The Court of Appeals determined that the verdict was excessive, and reversed the judgment for that reason, but determined that the court lacked jurisdiction to 'separate the issues of liability and damages,' and that it was therefore constrained to reverse and remand for a new trial of all issues, inasmuch as it found the damages issue to constitute reversible error.
On that latter question, the court found that its judgment is in conflict with the judgment in Jasterbowski v. Michos (1975), 44 Ohio App.2d 201, 337 N.E.2d 627, on the question: '(W)hether a Court of Appeals may properly reverse a judgment only as to damages and remand...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Riedel v. Akron Gen. Health Sys.
...JR., J., CONCUR1 Citing Iames v. Murphy , 106 Ohio App.3d 627, 633, 666 N.E.2d 1147 (1st Dist.1995), citing Mast v. Doctor's Hosp. N. , 46 Ohio St.2d 539, 350 N.E.2d 429 (1976), and Slivka v. C.W. Transport, Inc. , 49 Ohio App.3d 79, 550 N.E.2d 196 (8th Dist.1988).2 Citing Iames at 933, 666......
-
Center Ridge Ganley, Inc. v. Stinn
...v. Chrysler Corp. (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 1, 523 N.E.2d 489, paragraphs one and two of the syllabus; Mast v. Doctor's Hosp. North (1976), 46 Ohio St.2d 539, 75 O.O.2d 556, 350 N.E.2d 429. In examining the Supreme Court edict in the context of its reliance on the Markus rationale, it is clear ......
-
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Chrysler Corp.
...Co. [1984], 12 Ohio St.3d 241, 12 OBR 322, 466 N.E.2d 883, paragraph one of the syllabus, and Mast v. Doctor's Hospital North [1976], 46 Ohio St.2d 539, 75 O.O.2d 556, 350 N.E.2d 429, 2. The rationale authorizing reviewing courts to order a limited remand implicitly recognizes the need for ......
-
Snell v. Salem Ave. Assoc.
...is limited to these specific issues, since the rest of the issues treated below are free from error. Mast v. Doctor's Hosp. N. (1976), 46 Ohio St.2d 539, 75 O.O.2d 556, 350 N.E.2d 429. Accordingly, the third assignment of error of Black is sustained and the fourth assignment of error of Pos......