Keen v. Hardin Mem. Hosp., Unpublished Decision (12-15-2003)

2003 Ohio 6707
CourtOhio Court of Appeals
DecidedDecember 15, 2003
DocketCase No. 6-03-08.
StatusUnpublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 2003 Ohio 6707 (Keen v. Hardin Mem. Hosp., Unpublished Decision (12-15-2003)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Keen v. Hardin Mem. Hosp., Unpublished Decision (12-15-2003), 2003 Ohio 6707 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003).

Opinion

OPINION
{¶ 1} The plaintiff-appellant, Daniel Keen, individually and on behalf of the estate of Helen Columber, appeals the April 11, 2003 judgment of the Common Pleas Court of Hardin County, Ohio, rendering judgment in favor of the appellees, Jeffrey Romig, M.D., and Hardin Memorial Hospital, based upon a jury verdict in their favor.

{¶ 2} On October 8, 1998, Helen Columber, age seventy, went to the emergency room at Hardin Memorial Hospital, complaining of severe leg pain and chest pain. She was examined by Dr. Romig, who worked for a private company that contracted with the hospital to provide emergency room doctors. Dr. Romig ordered various tests for Helen, including a chemistry. The chemistry revealed that Helen's potassium level was far below the normal range, a condition called hypokalemia, and Dr. Romig attributed her leg pain to this problem. After consulting with Dr. Jeffrey Neuhauser, the physician on-call that day for Helen's primary physician, Dr. Romig then admitted her to the hospital for observation.

{¶ 3} The following morning, Helen's legs were found to be cold, blue, and diaphoretic (moist). In addition, Helen could not move her legs, and no pulse could be palpitated in them. A Doppler ultrasound was ordered but no pulse was detected by this method either until Helen's bladder was emptied, and then a very weak pulse was found. She was quickly transported to St. Rita's Medical Center in Lima, Ohio, to be evaluated by a vascular surgeon, as none were available at Hardin Memorial.

{¶ 4} After examining her, doctors at St. Rita's told her that she would have to undergo drastic surgery because she was suffering from aortic occlusion, which meant that blood was no longer flowing to her legs. Helen was further advised that this type of surgery could result in the amputation of both of her legs from high above her knees. Helen and her family elected to refrain from surgery and requested that no heroic measures be taken by the medical staff at St. Rita's. She remained at St. Rita's until her death four days later, on October 13, 1998.

{¶ 5} One year later, Helen's son, Daniel Keen, filed a complaint in the Common Pleas Court of Hardin County on behalf of his mother's estate and himself, alleging medical malpractice. Among those named as defendants were Dr. Romig and Hardin Memorial Hospital. This complaint was later voluntarily dismissed by Keen. However, on January 23, 2001, Keen filed a second complaint. Once again, Dr. Romig and Hardin Memorial, inter alia, were named as defendants. All other defendants were eventually dismissed from the case for various reasons, and the case proceeded to a five-day jury trial from March 24-28, 2003, with only Dr. Romig and Hardin Memorial as defendants.

{¶ 6} Keen's theory at trial as to liability was that Dr. Romig neglected to adequately treat and diagnose Helen while she was under his care in the emergency room. Specifically, experts for the plaintiff testified that a Doppler ultrasound would have detected an occlusion, which was the source of Helen's leg pain, and early detection would have resulted in a fairly simple procedure to alleviate the occlusion rather than Helen's death. As for Hardin Memorial, Keen contended that it was liable because its nurses and other staff did not provide adequate care for Helen in promptly detecting symptoms of occlusion. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found in both defendants' favor. This appeal followed, and Keen now asserts one assignment of error.

The trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury regarding the lawof spoliation.

{¶ 7} In his sole assignment of error, Keen maintains that the trial court erred by not providing various instructions to the jury as to the spoliation of evidence by Dr. Romig. This assertion is based on missing dictation from Dr. Romig regarding his examination and treatment of Helen. During discovery, Helen's medical chart was requested by counsel for Keen. Upon reviewing the chart, counsel discovered that the chart did not contain any dictation by Dr. Romig. However, Dr. Romig testified during his deposition and at trial that he remembered dictating Helen's medical history and his findings, which would have been placed in her chart after it was reduced to writing. Nevertheless, neither Hardin Memorial nor Dr. Romig could account for what happened to this dictation.

{¶ 8} Because of the defendants' inability to account for the dictation, Keen filed a motion for sanctions for the spoliation of evidence prior to trial. In this motion, Keen requested that the trial court impose one of three possible sanctions. One possible sanction was for the court to instruct the jury that it could infer that the information contained in the dictation would be harmful to the defense due to the defendants' inability to produce this dictation. The second possible sanction requested by Keen was for a ruling in limine to preclude the defendants from offering any testimony as to the care and treatment provided in the emergency room because this was the information that would have been contained in the missing dictation. Lastly, Keen asserted that the trial court should impose the third possible sanction, which would be to create a rebuttable presumption of negligence by the defense. Keen also requested that the trial court instruct the jury as to punitive damages against Dr. Romig, based on his allegation that Dr. Romig intentionally falsified evidence to avoid liability. During the trial, the court denied both the motion for sanctions and the motion to instruct the jury regarding punitive damages. Keen now maintains that the trial court erred by not instructing the jury as to the spoliation of evidence and also erred by not providing an instruction as to punitive damages.

{¶ 9} Our review of these issues begins by noting that, ordinarily, requested jury instructions should be given if they are correct statements of law, that are applicable to the facts in the case, and reasonable minds could reach the conclusion sought by the specific instruction. Murphy v. Carrollton Mfg. Co. (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 585,591. When reviewing a trial court's jury instructions, the proper standard of review for an appellate court is whether the trial court's refusal to give a requested jury instruction constituted an abuse of discretion under the facts and circumstances of the case. State v.Wolons (1989), 44 Ohio St.3d 64, 68. The term "abuse of discretion" implies that the court's attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219.

Spoliation of Evidence
{¶ 10} Spoliation of evidence has been recognized by the Ohio Supreme Court as an independent cause of action. Smith v. Howard JohnsonCo., Inc. (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 28, 29. Included among the elements of such a claim is a showing that the defendant willfully destroyed evidence in an effort to disrupt the plaintiff's case. Id. Although spoliation constitutes a separate cause of action, an aggrieved party is not required to seek redress solely by instituting this type of claim. Rather, a court can impose sanctions on the spoliator.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Owens v. Bridgestone
2020 Ohio 5156 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2020)
Cincinnati v. Triton Servs., Inc.
2019 Ohio 3108 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2019)
Scheel v. Rock Ohio Caesars Cleveland, L.L.C.
2018 Ohio 3568 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2018)
Williams v. Continental Express Co., 17-08-10 (10-14-2008)
2008 Ohio 5312 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2008)
Roetenberger v. Christ Hospital
839 N.E.2d 441 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2003 Ohio 6707, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/keen-v-hardin-mem-hosp-unpublished-decision-12-15-2003-ohioctapp-2003.