Friday First District Roundup 3-19-21

Evelyn Young v. bubakar Atiq Durrani, M.D., Christ Hospital
Case #C190707
Quote from Judge Crouse's Opinion:
These five consolidated appeals concern the latest in the several hundred cases involving alleged medical malpractice by defendant Abubakar Atiq Durrani, M.D. In line with recent authority from this court, we conclude that appellants’ claims are barred by the four-year medical-malpractice statute of repose. Therefore, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.
Appellants are five former patients of Durrani, a spinal surgeon who formerly operated at defendant-appellee The Christ Hospital (“TCH”). Appellants underwent various spinal surgeries with Durrani between April 2007 and April 2009. Appellants allege that their surgeries were among the hundreds of medically unnecessary surgeries performed by Durrani. 


Douglas Hayes, as Administrator of the Estate of William Hayes v. Abubakar Atiq Durrani, M.D., Center for Advanced Spine Technologies, Inc.
Case #C190617
Quote from Judge Myers' Opinion:
Douglas Hayes, as the administrator of the estate of his deceased father William Hayes (“William”), appeals the trial court’s entry granting judgment in favor of Abubakar Atiq Durrani, M.D., and the Center for Advanced Spine Technologies, Inc., (“CAST”) on Hayes’s claims asserted against them.
After experiencing pain in his lower back for several months, William was referred to Dr. Durrani, who performed surgery on William’s back in June of 2012. Dr. Durrani performed a second surgery on William’s back in December of 2012. Approximately four months later, William passed away. At the time of his death, he was receiving chemotherapy for multiple myeloma. 


State of Ohio v. Anthony McDaniel
Case #C190476 
Quote from Judge Bergeron's Opinion:
Sometimes, a case helps illustrate the wisdom of a familiar adage, like don’t ask a question you don’t know the answer to. This is such a case. Defense counsel pried from the victim, in cross-examination, damaging (and otherwise inadmissible) testimony about the defendant’s prior convictions by asking her to share any concerns she had about the defendant. With the door thrown open, the trial court admitted certified copies of these prior convictions, which the state portrayed as admissible under Evid.R. 404(B). As we explain below, we find that the trial court impermissibly admitted this latter evidence, which is hallmark propensity evidence in contravention of Evid.R. 404(B), as the Ohio Supreme Court has recently explained. However, we ultimately find this error harmless because the jury already had before it evidence of the prior convictions by virtue of the victim’s testimony, blunting any prejudice that the defendant could claim. Therefore, we affirm the conviction. 


Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Patrick C. Shear, Sandra A. Shear
Case #C190466 
Quote from Judgement Entry:
This appeal arises from plaintiff-appellee Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.’s, (“the bank”) foreclosure on a mortgage on real property located at 539 Chaswil Drive, Cincinnati, Ohio.
The underlying complaint is the third complaint in foreclosure. The bank filed the first complaint in July 2014. The trial court subsequently dismissed the complaint pursuant to the bank’s motion. The bank filed the second complaint in March 2016. The trial court again dismissed the complaint pursuant to the bank’s motion.


State of Ohio v. Michael Stumph
Case #C190318 
Quote from Judge Myers' Opinion:
Defendant-appellant Michael Stumph pled guilty to aggravated murder in violation of R.C. 2903.01(B) and was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Stumph appeals, arguing that his guilty plea was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered, that the trial court erred in imposing a sentence of life without the possibility of parole, that the cumulative effect of the errors tainting his guilty plea and the sentencing hearing require reversal of his conviction, and that R.C. 2953.08(D)(3), which prohibits the review of sentences imposed for aggravated murder, is unconstitutional.
For the reasons set forth below, we decline to address Stumph’s constitutional challenges to R.C. 2953.08(D)(3). And finding Stumph’s remaining assignments of error to be without merit, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.