[Cite as Calandra v. Rowbotham, 2025-Ohio-5826.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OTTAWA COUNTY
Nicoline M. Calandra Court of Appeals No. OT-25-001
Appellant Trial Court No. 22CV132 v.
Terry R. Rowbotham, et al., DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Appellees Decided: December 30, 2025
***** J. Mark Trimble and Stephen E. House, for appellee.
John K. Fitch, and Kirstin A. Peterson, for appellant.
*****
ZMUDA, J.
I. Introduction
{¶ 1} This matter is an appeal of the trial court’s denial of a motion for judgment
notwithstanding the verdict and motion for new trial, filed by appellant/plaintiff Nicoline
M. Calandra, following a jury trial in her medical negligence suit. Based on the
following, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. II. Background and Procedural History
{¶ 2} Calandra sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident in Ottawa County,
caused by appellee/defendant Terry Rowbotham. Calandra sought medical treatment for a
closed head injury and concussion, which included CT and MRI scans, neurocognitive
testing, and treatment for dizziness, headache, nausea, and blurred vision. Calandra filed
suit alleging negligence, and the matter proceeded to a jury trial on April 16, 2024.
Rowbotham acknowledged negligence but disputed the extent of Calandra’s claimed
injuries and damages. Because Rowbotham suffers from dementia, he did not attend the
trial.
{¶ 3} The issue at trial concerned the extent to which Calandra’s medical bills
relate to the injury sustained in the accident. Prior to the accident, Calandra had two TMJ
surgeries, in 2018 and 2020, with the TMJ associated with job stress. Calandra also had a
history of migraines, arthritis of the neck, and she had cataracts and wore corrective
lenses. Three months before the accident, Calandra also complained of ear pain and right-
side headaches, and reported discomfort when chewing, related to her TMJ issues. An
MRI of the brain, taken after the accident, revealed existing small vessel ischemia
disease, an age-related condition that is linked with memory loss.
{¶ 4} After the accident, the emergency room doctors diagnosed Calandra with a
closed-head injury without loss of consciousness. Calandra followed up with her primary
care physician, Dr. Bonnie Case, in the following weeks and was diagnosed with
concussion without loss of consciousness. Calandra reported symptoms including
dizziness, nausea, neck pain, blurred and double vision, light sensitivity, anxiety,
2. depression, mental fogginess, hearing difficulties, and memory issues. Her treatment after
the initial assessment in the hospital emergency room included follow-ups with her
primary care physicians, Dr. Case and Dr. Jeffrey Garman, and treatment at the Cleveland
Clinic Neurologic Institute and the University of Pennsylvania Medical Center (UPMC)
concussion clinic. Calandra also received physical therapy and vestibular/ocular therapy.
After four months, Calandra’s treating doctors noted normal physical exams, and by mid-
to late-2021, doctors noted Calandra’s physical concussion symptoms were either
improved to near normal or resolved, based on treatment notes and Calandra’s own report
of her symptoms, as reflected in her medical records. The lingering cognitive deficits
Calandra reported were deemed not inconsistent with the effects of aging throughout the
medical records. However, Calandra’s primary care physicians continued to treat her for
concussion, and she reported continuing or relapsing symptoms, triggered by exertion or
stress.
{¶ 5} While the issue at trial was the extent of Calandra’s injuries and damages,
the issue on appeal concerns whether Rowbotham needed to present his own expert
medical testimony to rebut Calandra’s expert testimony. At trial, Calandra presented two
medical experts, Dr. Jonathan Pedrick, a physician and brain injury specialist, and Dr.
Steven Curtis, an optometrist with specialized training in neuro-optometric rehabilitation.
Calandra’s medical records were also admitted, without objection.1 Rowbotham rested his
1 Calandra did object to Rowbotham’s exhibits for Dr. Goth’s care, based on Dr. Goth’s difficult-to-read handwriting, but she otherwise acknowledged the exhibits had been referenced in testimony. The trial court admitted these records. 3. case without presenting witness testimony, relying on cross-examination of Calandra’s
witnesses and the defense exhibits introduced through that testimony.
{¶ 6} One of the records emphasized by Rowbotham’s counsel at trial concerned
the opinion of Dr. Nicholas DenBesten. In April 2021, Calandra’s primary care physician,
Dr. Garman, referred her to Dr. DenBesten, a neuropsychologist, for “evaluation to assist
with facilitating and informing medical differential diagnosis and clinical decision-
making.” Calandra was evaluated by Dr. DenBesten, and in his report, DenBesten
provided the following opinion as to Calandra’s continuing symptoms:
Current neuropsychological evaluation is largely characterized by reduced attention and processing speed. Memory performance was variable and, when attentive, is expected to be consistent with pre-morbid estimates. A single, uncomplicated concussed event, such as above, is expected to spontaneously resolve within days to weeks of injury. Persisting symptoms beyond that timeframe are typically perpetuated by persisting physical discomfort and/or emotional distress. Her cognitive concerns are in the context of mild depression, moderate anxiety, and persisting physical discomfort such as headache, dizziness, nausea, and blurred vision. She has become quite fixated on these issues and the extreme physical discomfort she is experiencing. As a result, the combination of these factors appears to be sapping her attentional resources, thereby interfering with optimal memory in cognitive efficiency. She may be experiencing posttraumatic headache and persisting cervical vertigo v. labyrinthine concussion; however, current presentation is not consistent with cerebral concussion. Patient is not demonstrating any compelling evidence of persisting cognitive sequela associated with the abovementioned injury.
{¶ 7} Following this evaluation, Calandra completed treatment at the concussion
clinic at UPMC, with the UPMC doctors determining Calandra had recovered from her
concussion. With Calandra’s physical exams showing recovery from the concussion, the
focus shifted to Calandra managing her stress and anxiety. Calandra returned to her
4. primary care physician and continued to receive treatment for recurring concussion
symptoms. She was still receiving treatment at the time of trial.
{¶ 8} At trial, Calandra argued that her ongoing symptoms were all related to the
accident. Rowbotham argued that within months of the accident, Calandra’s accident-
related injuries had all been resolved, and the remaining symptoms either resulted from
preexisting conditions or were age-related. Calandra was 71 years old at the time of trial.
{¶ 9} In addressing Calandra’s argument on appeal, a summary of the trial
testimony is necessary.2
{¶ 10} First, Dr. Jonathan Pedrick testified regarding his review of Calandra’s
medical records and his own evaluation of Calandra in his capacity as a brain injury
specialist. Dr. Pedrick noted that Calandra’s physical examination was normal, showing
normal physical abilities like walking and strength and flexibility. Dr. Pedrick testified
that Calandra suffered from post-concussion syndrome, noting all her reported symptoms
were consistent with the lingering effects of her head injury.
{¶ 11} Dr. Pedrick indicated that most people recover from concussion within
about three months, but for a rare group, about 10%, the effects of concussion linger for a
year or years. Based on his review of the medical records and his own examination, he
believed Calandra fell into this rare group. Dr. Pedrick determined that Calandra’s report
of changes to her senses of smell and taste was particularly significant, and more likely
2 The testimony is presented out of order. At trial, the testimony of Calandra and her husband was presented after the video deposition of Dr. Pedrick, and before the video deposition of Dr. Curtis, which was played for the jury the next day. 5. than not indicative of a lingering concussion. Dr. Pedrick also described the recovery
process as “up and down,” with bad days often coinciding with stressors. He testified
that, while most of Calandra’s symptoms were resolved, a small subset of symptoms
remained, negatively impacting Calandra’s quality of life.
{¶ 12} On cross-examination, Dr. Pedrick acknowledged that he previously
reviewed 14 cases for Calandra’s counsel over the past seven years, receiving
compensation for his work, and he did not treat Calandra but only provided an expert
opinion after seeing her. He also acknowledged that Calandra’s reported loss of taste and
smell appeared nowhere in her medical charts as a prior complaint, and Dr. Pedrick’s own
examination of Calandra showed normal physical results. When questioned about specific
neurological complaints, Dr. Pedrick agreed that Calandra’s complaints could relate to
migraine, and Dr. Pedrick agreed that Calandra’s concussion symptoms did not manifest
until the days following the accident, indicating minor concussion.
{¶ 13} Rowbotham’s counsel also questioned Dr. Pedrick about Dr. DenBesten’s
findings. Dr. Pedrick acknowledged that Calandra presented as overly concerned with her
physical ailments. Dr. Pedrick also acknowledged that a subsequent examination with Dr.
Puskar, a neuropsychologist from UPMC, echoed the need for Calandra to better regulate
stress and anxiety based on Calandra’s extreme reaction to minor stressors. Dr. Pedrick
disagreed with Dr. DenBesten’s conclusion that Calandra’s continuing symptoms were
inconsistent with concussion, opining that Calandra’s loss of taste and smell and lingering
headaches indicated post-concussion syndrome. At the same time, Dr. Pedrick agreed
with the findings of Dr. DenBesten and Dr. Puskar that managing stress was important in
6. managing Calandra’s symptoms, going forward. Overall, Dr. Pedrick disagreed with
subsequent doctors who determined Calandra’s concussion symptoms had resolved,
based on his own conclusion that Calandra was part of the 10% that experienced
lingering symptoms that could be addressed with additional treatment.
{¶ 14} Calandra’s second medical expert was Dr. Steven Curtis, an optometrist
with specialized training in neuro-optometric rehabilitation, the treatment of patients with
neurological injury to the vision system. Dr. Curtis examined Calandra in September
2023, performing a structural examination of the eye and conducting functional tests of
Calandra’s vision. Dr. Curtis noted five deficits in Calandra’s vision that he concluded
were accident related: convergence insufficiency, saccadic eye movement deficiency,
smooth pursuit eye movement deficiency, dizziness, and a contraction of peripheral
vision. He clarified that his diagnosis was limited to deficits related to concussion, based
on the prior diagnosis of concussion by medical doctors. Dr. Curtis recommended
treatment to address these deficits, testifying to the length and cost of that treatment.
{¶ 15} On cross-examination, Dr. Curtis acknowledged that some of Calandra’s
symptoms might also be caused by migraines or cataracts or age, and previous exams
noted none of the vision deficits he observed. Dr. Curtis also noted that Calandra received
vision therapy prior to seeing him, as part of vestibular/ocular therapy. Rowbotham’s
counsel then went through the various medical records, pointing out inconsistencies in
Calandra’s report of symptoms by comparing her prior reports to doctors or therapists to
the history Calandra provided to Dr. Curtis, as well as prior conclusions that Calandra’s
concussion symptoms had resolved. Dr. Curtis agreed that Calandra’s report to him did
7. not match the medical records. He disagreed, however, with conclusions regarding
concussion symptoms as resolved as it related to Calandra’s vision. As to future
treatment, Dr. Curtis acknowledged that Calandra did not return to his office for
treatment, and there were no medical records noting the neuro-optometric treatment he
recommended, after her exam with Dr. Curtis.
{¶ 16} Calandra presented her own testimony to support her claim for damages.
Pertinent to this appeal, she described her prior work as a design professional, requiring
precise mathematical computations and measurements to attain proper fit for the apparel
she designed, indicating her work also involved supervising others throughout her career.
She acknowledged that, at the time of the accident, she was not working, as she was on
disability for her TMJ surgeries and treatment for complications of the surgery that
included damage to her ear canal. Calandra testified, however, that at the time of the
accident, her TMJ-related issues were resolved and she was pain free.
{¶ 17} Calandra further testified regarding her prior medical history, indicating she
took several prescriptions for allergic reactions, as needed, and she was allergic to many
things and suffered anaphylactic shock with exposure. She also testified that she was
having trouble seeing print on the computer and focusing on her designs, but her eye
doctor adjusted her contact prescription, and she was happy with the results. Calandra
also admitted she was previously diagnosed with anxiety and depression, but testified that
the anxiety arose from her TMJ issues, and she never agreed with the depression
diagnosis. She denied she suffered from depression just before the accident or had
previous arthritic pain in her neck, stating, “Couple months before the accident, I was
8. really feeling good. It was like, you know, after all of the TMJ stuff, it was remarkable
that I was feeling good again.”
{¶ 18} Immediately after the accident, Calandra testified she felt headache and jaw
pain, with her prior TMJ issues exacerbated. Days later, she experienced an increase in
that pain, and experienced nausea, dizziness, blurry vision, and pain radiating down her
neck to her arm. Calandra also reported that lying in bed was difficult. Doctors diagnosed
concussion, and Calandra received treatment at the UPMC concussion clinic. As to Dr.
DenBesten, Calandra remembered the exam and that Dr. DenBesten did not believe she
suffered from concussion. Calandra testified, “He was very clear when he said to both me
and my husband that I could not be complaining of a concussion because – or a brain
injury because you have to be in a coma for a period of time in order to have a brain
injury.” Calandra indicated her primary care doctor, who had referred her to Dr.
DenBesten, did not agree with Dr. DenBesten’s conclusion.
{¶ 19} Calandra testified that she continued receiving treatment for concussion
after seeing Dr. DenBensten. She received mindful therapy at UPMC and worked on her
vision and reading through color therapy and reading therapy sessions. Calandra testified
that she was released to drive around mid-2022, and in June 2023, Dr. Collins at UPMC
concluded Calandra’s concussion symptoms were resolved. In late 2023, however,
Calandra returned to her primary doctor, complaining of renewed symptoms after
attending family functions in Chicago in September through October of that year. While
her physical exams were normal, she reported flare-ups of her concussion symptoms,
triggered by sounds and lights, with similar experiences after activities like shopping or
9. eating in restaurants or other outings with bright or noisy environments. Calandra
emphasized that she continues to receive treatment for her concussion symptoms.
{¶ 20} On cross-examination, Calandra acknowledged that she does attend
gatherings, eat at restaurants, socialize, take care of her home, cook, and tend her plants.
She also admitted that she did not hit her head in the accident and had initially reported
no loss of consciousness to the paramedics, following the accident. Calandra also
acknowledged that all scans of her brain, following the accident, showed no signs of
concussion; her neurological exams were all normal.
{¶ 21} When questioned on her exam with Dr. DenBesten, Calandra disagreed
with the findings. Dr. DenBesten noted Calandra’s peripheral vision was good, her
memory of facts and dates was excellent, and Calandra had recall of the events during the
accident. Calandra also admitted that Dr. DenBensten did not reference “coma” in his
report, and while she admitted he told her she did not have a concussion, she maintained
that he based this solely on the lack of a coma. Calandra also insisted that Dr. DenBesten
was the only doctor that told her that her symptoms were not consistent with a cerebral
concussion, deeming the symptoms stress-related, but also agreed that at a November
2022 appointment she reported she was not experiencing concussion symptoms.
{¶ 22} Calandra otherwise denied that subsequent doctors determined her
concussion symptoms were resolved, or attributable to stress or age-related conditions,
insisting the records were incorrect. Calandra also acknowledged she was pursuing a
wrongful termination suit between April 2020 and May 2021, around the time of the
August 2020 accident and initial treatment. As part of her claims against her prior
10. employer, she alleged harassment and increased stress in her life arising from her
employment, and Calandra admitted that stress is a major contributor to her symptoms.
{¶ 23} Finally, Calandra presented the testimony of her husband, John. His
testimony was based on his perception of Calandra, both before the accident and after.
John testified regarding Calandra’s talent for her career and her activities, pre-accident,
indicating that she was unable to function the same way after the accident. John indicated
Calandra spent more time lying in bed with headaches, and while she slowly improved
through therapy, the treatments had to constantly change as her progress “flattened out.”
John testified that he could gauge Calandra’s headaches by the degree her eyes crossed,
and the couple could not plan vacations as Calandra continues to experience debilitating
headaches. John testified regarding the many appointments and the couple’s out-of-
pocket expenses for treatments, including mileage, tolls, and hotel stays.
{¶ 24} On cross-examination, John acknowledged that Calandra’s claimed
difficulty in lying in bed was inconsistent with his observation that she would lie in bed
for hours or days at a time. John was not present for Dr. DenBesten’s testing of Calandra
and knew little about the tests performed by other practitioners. John believed the
medical record, showing Calandra reported no concussion symptoms in November 2022,
was inaccurate.
{¶ 25} At the end of John’s testimony, Calandra rested her case. Rowbotham
presented no witnesses, and the matter proceeded with jury instruction and closing
argument.
11. {¶ 26} In closing arguments, Calandra’s trial counsel acknowledged that
Calandra’s MRI and CT scans were normal following the accident, but doctors still
determined there was brain injury. Calandra’s counsel also acknowledged that the
concussion clinic determined Calandra’s concussion systems had resolved around June
2023, but Calandra’s doctors continued to treat her for her symptoms as her brain injury
was only partially recovered, and she suffered relapses. Based on the need for continuing
treatment and therapy and the pain and suffering incurred, counsel argued that economic
and noneconomic damages totaling $500,000 were appropriate.
{¶ 27} Rowbotham’s trial counsel disagreed, but acknowledged Calandra had
suffered a concussion because of the accident. Rowbotham’s counsel argued that the
medical record demonstrated mild concussion, and that Calandra suffered migraines,
memory issues, and additional age-related ailments prior to the accident, with these
ailments reported post-accident as lingering complaints arising from her concussion.
Rowbotham’s counsel emphasized Dr. DenBesten’s finding in April 2021, that Calandra
“has a somatic preoccupation with self-reporting. Tendency to physically expressing
emotional distress.” He noted that another doctor reached the same conclusion two
months later and the concussion clinic subsequently discharged Calandra, finding full
recovery from concussion. Counsel referenced Calandra’s medical record, noting her
preexisting conditions and the many stressors in her life during the period after the
accident, arguing Calandra reported her emotional distress as concussion symptoms.
Based on the conclusions of Dr. DenBensten and others, Rowbotham’s trial counsel
argued that appropriate damages consisted of the amount spent on medical care up until
12. Dr. DenBesten’s consultation, or $15,206.24, with an equal amount for Calandra’s pain
and suffering.
{¶ 28} Following deliberation, the jury returned a verdict for Calandra and
awarded her $15,206.24 for past economic loss and $15,000.00 for past noneconomic
loss, with no award for future loss, for a total award of $30,206.24. Calandra moved for
judgment notwithstanding the verdict pursuant to Civ.R. 50(B), and a motion for new trial
pursuant to Civ.R. 59(A)(6). Calandra argued that the jury limited the award based on
argument of Rowbotham’s counsel, incorrectly stating that Calandra did not suffer from
concussion, and that the weight of the evidence supported an award of damages beyond
the date of Dr. DenBesten’s consultation.
{¶ 29} Rowbotham opposed the motion, arguing that the record supported the
jury’s award of damages. Rowbotham noted that the jury had additional evidence beyond
Dr. DenBesten’s report, showing subsequent medical providers had also documented
Calandra’s normal neurologic findings and recovery from concussion, with ongoing
complaints unrelated to the accident and concussion. Of note, Rowbotham cited to
specific parts of Calandra’s medical record, entered as exhibits at trial and considered by
the jury in its deliberations:
(1) June 10, 2021 correspondence from Dr. Puskar, Psy.D., UPMC concussion clinic, to Dr. Case, noting Calandra’s “current symptoms indicate a need for better regulation of stress and anxiety;” a (2) November 22, 2022 progress note from Dr. Burley, PhD., UPMC concussion clinic, recording Calandra’s denial of “all physical symptoms of concussion;” (3) December 6, 2022 progress note from Dr. Vincent, D.O., Cleveland Clinic Neurologic Institute, documenting a normal neurological examination;
13. (4) June 6, 2023 progress note from Dr. Collins, PhD., UPMC concussion clinic, finding “current presentation is notable for anxiety…and not due to any concussion etiology;” (5) August 31, 2023 note from Dr. Collins, finding Calandra “has remained asymptomatic at rest and with physical activity, I believe she has fully recovered from the concussion;” and (6) October 17, 2023 note from Dr. Collins, finding “symptoms from the cerebral concussion have resolved.”
{¶ 30} In reply, Calandra argued that Rowbotham’s opposition argument relied on
selections from the medical record, “cherry-picked” to misrepresent the concussion
treatment that Calandra continued to receive and still receives to treat her accident-related
injuries.
{¶ 31} The trial court denied the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict
and motion for new trial, finding the verdict supported by competent, credible evidence
going to all essential elements, and not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
{¶ 32} This appeal followed.
III. Assignments of Error
{¶ 33} Calandra raises the following assignments of error on appeal:
1. The Trial Court erred to the prejudice of Appellant Nicoline M. Calandra in its decision to deny her Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict and Motion for New Trial.
2. The jury’s decision to limit Appellant Nicoline M. Calandra’s recovery to medical expenses only up to April 21, 2021 was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
IV. Analysis
{¶ 34} Calandra’s assignments of error challenge the amount of the jury award,
arguing the “decision to cut off recovery for medical expenses as of April 21, 2021 – for a
14. total of $15,206.24 – was not supported by any evidence whatsoever, let alone any legally
sufficient evidence or the manifest weight of evidence.” Calandra argues that the
“uncontroverted testimony” of her experts demonstrated the connection between her
subjective complaints of injury and the accident, and the jury verdict was inconsistent
with this credible testimony.
{¶ 35} In her first assignment of error, Calandra challenges the sufficiency of the
evidence and denial of her Civ.R. 50(B) motion. In her second assignment of error, she
challenges the weight of the evidence and denial of her Civ.R. 50(B) and 59(A)(6)
motions. For ease of discussion, we address her assignments of error together.
{¶ 36} Calandra’s post-verdict motions were pursuant to Civ.R. 50(B) and Civ.R.
59(A)(6), which provide in pertinent part:
(B) Post-Trial Motion for Judgment or for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict or in Lieu of Verdict.
(1) Whether or not a motion to direct a verdict has been made or overruled, a party may serve a motion to have the verdict and any judgment entered thereon set aside and to have judgment entered in accordance with the party's motion… A motion for a new trial may be joined with either motion, or a new trial may be requested in the alternative.
…
(3) If a verdict was returned, the court may allow the judgment to stand or may reopen the judgment. If the judgment is reopened, the court shall either order a new trial or direct the entry of judgment, but no judgment shall be rendered by the court on the ground that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. …
Civ.R. 50(B).
15. (A) Grounds for New Trial. A new trial may be granted to all or any of the parties and on all or part of the issues upon any of the following grounds: … (6) The judgment is not sustained by the weight of the evidence; however, only one new trial may be granted on the weight of the evidence in the same case;
Civ.R. 59(A)(6).
{¶ 37} We review a decision on a motion for judgment notwithstanding the
verdict, under Civ.R. 50(B), de novo, based on the manifest weight of the evidence
standard. Dayton v. CSX Transp., Inc., 2013-Ohio-3845, ¶ 27 (6th Dist.). The motion
presents only questions of law, and not factual issues. Eastley v. Volkman, 2012-Ohio-
2179, ¶ 25, citing Posin v. A.B.C. Motor Court Hotel, Inc., 45 Ohio St.2d 271, 275
(1976). In considering a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, we construe
the evidence most strongly for the nonmoving party, and “where there is substantial
evidence to support his side of the case, upon which reasonable minds may reach
different conclusions, the motion must be denied. Neither the weight of the evidence nor
the credibility of the witnesses is for the court's determination in ruling upon [the
motion].” (Citation omitted) Posin at 275.
{¶ 38} We review a decision on a motion for new trial, under Civ.R. 59(A)(6) for
an abuse of discretion. Osler v. City of Lorain, 28 Ohio St.3d 345, 351 (1986). “[I]n
ruling on a motion for a new trial, the trial court is afforded wide discretion in
determining whether a jury’s verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence, for
the court must ensure, in its supervisory capacity, against a miscarriage of justice.”
(Citations omitted), Osler at 351. An abuse of discretion means the trial court’s attitude in
16. denying the motion was arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable. Hess v. United Ins.
Co. of Am., 74 Ohio App.3d 667, 679 (6th Dist.1991), citing Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5
Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (1983).
{¶ 39} Here, Calandra’s argument focuses on the expert testimony, demonstrating
medical expenses beyond the date of her consultation with Dr. DenBesten. Calandra
argues that the issue of treatment and the causal connection to the accident required
expert testimony and Rowbotham presented no witnesses to establish the lack of
causation for all her medical expenses. However, Calandra fails to address the entire
record, which includes cross-examination of Calandra’s experts and Calandra’s medical
records. These records include Dr. DenBesten’s conclusions, as well as subsequent
medical findings by other treatment providers that Calandra’s concussion symptoms had
resolved.
{¶ 40} As noted by Rowbotham, a jury considered all the evidence in reaching the
verdict and awarding damages, and “the weight to be given the evidence and the
credibility of the witnesses are primarily for the trier of the facts.” State v. DeHass, 10
Ohio St.2d 230, (1967), paragraph one of the syllabus. “This rule is applied even when
the witness is an expert witness whose testimony is not countered by testimony from a
second expert witness.” Wamer v. Pfaff, 1998 WL 161195, *2 (6th Dist. Mar. 31, 1998),
citing State v. Brown, 5 Ohio St.3d 133, 134-135 (1983) (additional citations omitted.).
{¶ 41} Calandra’s position, that the evidence points to only one conclusion, is
belied by the record in this case. The expert testimony in her favor was challenged
through vigorous cross-examination, based on Calandra’s medical records. Through
17. cross-examination, Dr. Pedrick and Dr. Curtis both acknowledged that they relied on
Calandra’s report to them regarding her symptoms, and that their respective opinions
were based, in part, on inaccurate or incomplete information as a result. Dr. Pedrick,
moreover, acknowledged the differing medical opinions regarding Calandra’s recovery,
as referenced in the medical records admitted as exhibits. Calandra’s trial counsel,
furthermore, acknowledged conflicting information in the medical records in his closing
argument. Counsel acknowledged Dr. DenBesten’s conclusions, as well as the UPMC
concussion clinic’s conclusion that Calandra no longer exhibited concussion symptoms.
{¶ 42} Calandra’s counsel challenged the jury to consider the credibility of the
witnesses to resolve these factual issues, placing emphasis on the witnesses over the
medical record. However, “[t]he opinion of an expert is not conclusive upon the jury and
is but an item of evidence intended to assist the trier of fact in consideration with the
other evidence of the case.” Croft v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2002 WL 18665, *3
(3d Dist.Jan.8, 2002), citing Reder v. Antenucci, 62 Ohio App.3d 139, 143-144 (11th
Dist.1989) (additional citations omitted).
{¶ 43} On appeal, Calandra appears to reiterate her credibility argument, asserting
the verdict was contrary to the expert’s testimony, without addressing the evidence
contained within the exhibits, admitted and considered as additional evidence by the jury.
While the verdict was dependent on the jury’s considerations of weight and credibility,
these are matters that may not be considered by a trial court in ruling on a motion for
judgment notwithstanding the verdict. (Citation omitted) Posin at 275; see also Brondes
Ford, Inc. v. Habitec Sec., 2015-Ohio-2441, ¶ 157-158 (6th Dist.) (“A motion for JNOV
18. presents questions of law, not fact, “even though in deciding such a motion, it is
necessary to review and consider the evidence.”) (additional citations omitted.).
{¶ 44} Accordingly, construing the record in Rowbotham’s favor, we find there is
substantial evidence to support the jury’s award of damages in this case, and the trial
court did not err in denying Calandra’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict
under Civ.R. 50(B). Furthermore, based on this record, we find no abuse of discretion by
the trial court in denying the motion for new trial pursuant to Civ.R. 59(A)(6).
{¶ 45} While Calandra emphasizes the witness testimony that included two
medical experts, the jury had both testimony and exhibits to consider in assessing
Calandra’s claim of accident-related injuries. Calandra had the burden of demonstrating a
causal connection between the accident and her need for all the medical treatment she
claimed in her prayer for economic damages. “Objective reasons in the record exist from
which the jury could reject her claims[,]” and the jury was “free to believe or disbelieve”
Calandra’s witness testimony. See Wilson v. Gildow, 2003-Ohio-2534, ¶ 11 (6th Dist.),
citing Wamer, supra; Walker v. Holland, 117 Ohio App.3d 775, 792 (2d Dist.1997).
Considering the verdict, the jury was persuaded by Rowbotham’s counsel and disbelieved
Calandra’s experts.
{¶ 46} Upon thorough review of the record, the jury had substantial, competent,
and credible evidence upon which to base its verdict. Therefore, we find no abuse of
discretion by the trial court in denying Calandra’s motion for a new trial.
{¶ 47} Based on the foregoing, we find Calandra’s first and second assignments of
error not well-taken.
19. V. Conclusion
{¶ 48} We affirm the judgment of the Ottawa County Common Pleas Court.
Calandra is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant to App.R. 24.
Judgment affirmed.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27. See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.
Christine E. Mayle JUDGE
Gene A. Zmuda JUDGE
Myron C. Duhart CONCUR. JUDGE
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.
20.