Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Austermiller v. Dosick
Citations: 767 N.E.2d 1248; 146 Ohio App. 3d 728Docket: Court of Appeals No. L-01-1223, Trial Court No. CI-98-2443.
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals; December 30, 2001; Ohio; State Appellate Court
An appeal is pending in the Supreme Court of Ohio regarding case No. 2002-0284, which concerns a directed verdict in a medical malpractice lawsuit originating from the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas. The case involves Dr. Steven M. Dosick, a vascular surgeon, who performed surgery on Jerry C. Austermiller in 1994 and prescribed Coumadin for postoperative care. Austermiller did not attend his follow-up appointment, and there is a dispute over whether Dr. Dosick or his office called in Coumadin refills during the subsequent eighteen months. The last refill, ordered on March 11, 1996, was transferred incorrectly by a Napoleon pharmacy, leading to unauthorized refills in 1997. Austermiller died from internal bleeding on September 19, 1997, with the autopsy attributing the cause of death to "gastrointestinal exsanguination" and linking it to long-term Coumadin use. His estate, represented by appellant John W. Austermiller, filed a medical negligence suit against Dr. Dosick and the pharmacy. After settling with the pharmacy, the case proceeded to trial against Dr. Dosick, where expert testimony indicated that uncontrolled bleeding from Coumadin toxicity was the cause of death. Dr. Dosick denied prescribing Coumadin post-hospitalization and argued that any negligence by the pharmacy absolved him of liability. The trial court granted a directed verdict in favor of Dr. Dosick, leading to this appeal, where the appellant contends the court erred by resolving factual questions that should be left to the jury. A motion for a directed verdict can be granted if the trial court determines that, after interpreting the evidence in favor of the opposing party, reasonable minds could only conclude one way on a key issue, resulting in an unfavorable outcome for that party. The legal sufficiency of the evidence is evaluated without weighing it or assessing witness credibility. In this case, the appellee claims that any negligence in prescribing Coumadin is negated by the pharmacy's per se negligence in refilling a prescription after its expiration. While the appellant acknowledges the pharmacy's negligence, they argue it does not eliminate the appellee's liability. The court recognizes that intervening causes can serve as defenses in negligence and strict liability cases, but such determinations typically involve factual questions for the jury. The test established in prior cases assesses whether the intervening act is foreseeable and connected to the original negligent act or constitutes an independent cause absolving the original actor. The appellee's motion relies on the pharmacy's negligence and an expert's vague statement regarding the timing of Coumadin use. However, the ambiguity of this statement and the context of the autopsy findings present factual issues that must be resolved at trial. Consequently, the court finds the directed verdict was incorrectly granted, reverses the lower court's judgment, and remands the case for further proceedings, with costs assigned to the appellee.