Weisman v. Durrani

[Cite as Weisman v. Durrani, 2026-Ohio-2639.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO KIRSTIN WEISMAN, : APPEAL NO. C-250099 TRIAL NO. A-1706392 Plaintiff-Appellee, : vs. : ABUBAKAR ATIQ DURRANI, M.D., : and : CENTER FOR ADVANCED SPINE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., : Defendants-Appellants. : TAMMY JONES, : APPEAL NO. C-250241 TRIAL NO. A-1506164 Plaintiff-Appellee, : vs. : JUDGMENT ENTRY ABUBAKAR ATIQ DURRANI, M.D., : and : CENTER FOR ADVANCED SPINE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., : Defendants-Appellants. : This cause was heard upon the appeals, the records, the briefs, and arguments. For the reasons set forth in the Opinion filed this date, the judgments of the trial court are reversed and the cause is remanded. Further, the court holds that there were reasonable grounds for these appeals, allows no penalty, and orders that costs be taxed under App.R. 24.  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS The court further orders that (1) a copy of this Judgment with a copy of the Opinion attached constitutes the mandate, and (2) the mandate be sent to the trial court for execution under App.R. 27. To the clerk: Enter upon the journal of the court on 7/10/2026 per order of the court. By:_______________________ Administrative Judge [Cite as Weisman v. Durrani, 2026-Ohio-2639.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO KIRSTIN WEISMAN, : APPEAL NO. C-250099 TRIAL NO. A-1706392 Plaintiff-Appellee, : vs. : ABUBAKAR ATIQ DURRANI, M.D., : and : CENTER FOR ADVANCED SPINE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., : Defendants-Appellants. : TAMMY JONES, : APPEAL NO. C-250241 TRIAL NO. A-1506164 Plaintiff-Appellee, : vs. : OPINION ABUBAKAR ATIQ DURRANI, M.D., : and : CENTER FOR ADVANCED SPINE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., : Defendants-Appellants. : Civil Appeals From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas Judgments Appealed From Are: Reversed and Cause Remanded Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: July 10, 2026  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS Statman Harris, LLC, Alan J. Statman and Benjamin M. Maraan II, for Plaintiffs- Appellees, Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, Philip D. Williamson, Aaron M. Herzig, Russell S. Sayre and Lillian F. Rigby, for Defendants-Appellants. [Cite as Weisman v. Durrani, 2026-Ohio-2639.] CROUSE, Presiding Judge. {¶1} Defendants-appellants Dr. Abubakar Atiq Durrani and the Center for Advanced Spine Technologies, Inc., (“CAST”) (collectively, “Appellants”) appeal from the trial court’s judgments entered in favor of plaintiffs-appellees Kirstin Weisman and Tammy Jones (collectively, “Appellees”) in their medical-malpractice actions against Durrani and CAST.1 {¶2} Following our review of the record and the assignments of error presented for our review, we hold that (1) the trial court erred in failing to grant Appellants’ motion for a directed verdict on the claims brought by Weisman because the claims were filed outside of the statute of limitations, (2) the trial court erred in joining Weisman’s and Jones’s claims for trial because the claims did not share a common question of law or fact, (3) the trial court erred in allowing Dr. Zeeshan Tayeb to offer hearsay testimony about Durrani, (4) the trial court erred in allowing Dr. Ranjiv Saini to testify beyond his expertise as a radiologist, and (5) the trial court erred in allowing cumulative expert testimony on behalf of Appellees. {¶3} These errors, cumulatively, cannot be found harmless. We accordingly reverse the trial court’s judgments and remand the cause for the trial court to enter judgment in favor of Appellants on Weisman’s claims and for a new trial on Jones’s claims.2 1 We sua sponte consolidate these separate appeals into a single opinion and judgment. 2 Appellees filed motions to dismiss their fraud claims, which were denied by a motions panel of this court because the motions failed to state with particularity the grounds upon which they were based and because they appeared to request relief that this court cannot afford. Appellants and Jones filed supplemental briefs on the issues raised in the motions. Appellees subsequently filed “notice[s] of withdrawal” of their motions to dismiss the fraud claims, which were struck by a motions panel of this court. We decline to revisit our denial of the motions. If Jones wishes to withdraw her fraud claim, she may do so before the trial court.  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS I. Factual and Procedural History {¶4} In the case numbered A-1506164, Jones and her husband, Darrell Jones, filed a medical-malpractice action against Durrani and CAST.3 In the case numbered A-1706392, Weisman filed an amended medical-malpractice action against Durrani and CAST.4 Both Jones and Weisman asserted in their respective complaints that Durrani had performed unnecessary surgery on them and had not competently performed those surgeries. {¶5} Over Appellants’ objection, the trial court granted a motion for group trials filed by multiple plaintiffs with pending lawsuits against Durrani and CAST. In March 2022, the trial court issued a “fifth revised joint trial schedule sequence,” providing that the claims filed by Jones and Weisman were scheduled to be tried together. {¶6} In January 2023, Jones and Weisman filed motions for “Rule 42 joinder” asking the trial court to join their cases for trial. The motions argued that the two plaintiffs’ cases shared common questions of law and fact, including allegations of negligence and fraud and allegations that Durrani misread radiography results and exaggerated the extent of the pathology in plaintiffs’ spines to dupe them into undergoing surgery. The motions further argued that each plaintiff had surgery on the same area of the spine, and that joinder would avoid unnecessary delay and costs and would not prejudice Appellants. 3 The complaint also named Journey Lite of Cincinnati, LLC, as a defendant, but the claims against Journey Lite were dismissed prior to trial. 4 Weisman was one of the named plaintiffs in a multi-plaintiff lawsuit filed against Appellants in the case numbered A-1604542. Per court order, each plaintiff in that action was ordered to file their own complaint, which Weisman did in the case numbered A-1706392. Weisman’s complaint also named Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, West Chester Hospital, LLC, and UC Health as defendants. Weisman settled with these three defendants and her claims against them were dismissed. 6  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS {¶7} Appellants opposed the motions for joinder, arguing that the multiple issues, facts, and circumstances unique to each case prohibited joinder. They further argued that joinder would result in unfair prejudice to them from the introduction of improper evidence. The record contains no entry from the trial court ruling on the motions for joinder, but the claims asserted by Jones and Weisman were joined and tried together. {¶8} Appellants filed a motion in limine prior to trial requesting, as relevant to this appeal, an order precluding surgical-standard-of-care testimony from Dr. Saini and hearsay testimony from Dr. Tayeb. The trial court held that if a proper foundation was laid, Dr. Saini would be allowed to opine as to whether Durrani met the standard of care. With respect to Dr. Tayeb, the trial court held that he would be permitted to testify pursuant to the hearsay exception for reputation evidence set forth in Evid.R. 803(21). {¶9} A jury trial on Jones’s and Weisman’s claims for negligence, fraudulent misrepresentation, battery, and lack of informed consent began on March 6, 2023. Before any testimony was taken, Appellants again objected to the joinder of Jones’s and Weisman’s claims for trial, arguing that the “cases [were] in no way similar” and noting that different surgeries had been performed on each plaintiff at different levels of the spine. The trial court responded that the differences in the two plaintiffs’ cases “gives the jury an opportunity to make sure that they don’t confuse the matters and ensure that they keep them separate.” A. Evidence and Testimony Presented at Trial 1. Tammy Jones {¶10} The evidence presented at trial established that Jones had suffered pain in her middle back, right hip, and right upper leg for approximately one-and-a-half 7  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS years before seeing Durrani. Jones had treated with a pain specialist and had received steroid injections and an ablation without obtaining any pain relief. She had not attempted to treat her pain with chiropractic care, physical therapy, or prescription medication. {¶11} At Jones’s first appointment with Durrani, he told her that if she did not have surgery within two weeks, she would be paralyzed. He also told her that surgery would fix her. After examining Jones and reviewing radiographic images that had been taken in 2012, Durrani planned to perform a right-sided transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion at L3-4 and a right-sided hemilaminectomy, foraminotomy and discectomy at L4-5. Durrani’s notes indicated that Jones suffered from disc herniations, various forms of stenosis, and anterolisthesis. {¶12} Durrani performed surgery on Jones on February 22, 2013. Jones testified that she signed an informed-consent form on the morning of surgery, but that neither the terms on the form nor the risks and benefits of the surgery were explained. After Durrani finished the spinal surgery, and while Jones was in the recovery room, it became necessary for Durrani to take Jones back into the operating room and perform another surgery to correct an issue with the hardware he had placed. {¶13} Jones testified that she had a follow-up appointment with Durrani approximately two weeks after the surgery. Durrani’s notes indicated that Jones was “doing very well” and that he had referred her for physical therapy. Jones testified that she began therapy, but that it caused her pain and she elected not to continue. Jones suffered a fall down her basement stairs post-surgery, causing her additional pain. She testified that she had an appointment scheduled with CAST to receive an injection to help manage her pain, but was informed that the office had closed. She subsequently saw Dr. Tan Nichols at the Mayfield Institute. 8  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS {¶14} Dr. Nichols’s records provided that he had ordered updated radiographic images and determined that Jones’s pain best fit the L4 distribution. After reviewing Durrani’s operative report from the surgery on Jones, he found no evidence that Durrani had performed a right L4-5 decompression during surgery. Dr. Nichols performed spinal surgery, including an L4-5 fusion, on Jones in December 2013. {¶15} Jones testified about the impact that the surgery performed by Durrani had on her life, stating that it took approximately six months for her to be able to walk with the assistance of a walker and that she suffered from depression post-surgery. She further stated that her post-surgery pain was worse than it had been prior to surgery, but that she had received some relief after being treated by Dr. Nichols. Jones testified that she can no longer play with her grandchildren, and that she cannot sit in a church pew for a long period of time or ride her bike. {¶16} Jones presented expert testimony from neurosurgeon Dr. Stephen Bloomfield, orthopedic spine surgeon Dr. Keith Wilkey, and radiologist Dr. Saini. {¶17} Dr. Bloomfield testified that that he agreed with Durrani’s surgical plan to perform a right-sided hemilaminectomy and foraminotomy and discectomy at L4- 5, but that there was no medical indication for an instrumented fusion at L3-4. {¶18} Dr. Bloomfield was extremely critical of Durrani’s post-surgery operative report because it made no reference to the hemilaminectomy and discectomy at L4-5. He further stated that Durrani violated the standard of care when he failed to document in the operative report that Jones had to be taken back into surgery to correct an issue with the hardware placed during surgery. Further, as to the hardware, Dr. Bloomfield testified that Durrani erroneously indicated the brand of hardware used during the surgery, which was discovered by Dr. Nichols when 9  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS performing a revision surgery on Jones. {¶19} Dr. Bloomfield was also critical of Durrani’s post-surgery notes. He testified that the notes from Jones’s first post-surgery visit failed to reference the procedure performed at the L4-5 level, and that his notes from a subsequent visit discussed the placement of the hardware at L4-5, a level where no hardware had been placed. {¶20} Dr. Bloomfield testified that Jones was never at risk of paralysis if she did not have immediate surgery, and that Durrani breached the standard of care in telling Jones that she faced such a risk. He testified that Durrani’s surgery on Jones was a failure because it resulted in a nonunion and the instruments and screws that Durrani had placed loosened within six months. He opined that Durrani was negligent both in suggesting the surgery and in his performance of it, and that this negligence was the proximate cause of harm suffered by Jones. Dr. Bloomfield opined that Durrani breached the standard of care in his interpretation of Jones’s medical images, and that the damage caused to Jones from this surgery was permanent in nature and left her with a chronic spine problem. {¶21} Dr. Wilkey opined that Durrani breached the standard of care by performing a fusion surgery on Jones at L3-4 because the surgery was not medically necessary and Durrani had fabricated the results of Jones’s medical images. He was critical of Durrani for operating on the left side of Jones’s body and for telling Jones that she would suffer paralysis if she did not receive surgery within two weeks. Like Dr. Bloomfield, Dr. Wilkey was critical of the inaccuracies in Durrani’s post-surgery notes about Jones and of Durrani’s operative report. He testified that the report made no mention of any procedure performed at L4-5 or that Jones had to be taken from the recovery room back into surgery. 10  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS {¶22} Dr. Saini testified that there was no evidence that Jones would have been paralyzed if she did not undergo surgery within two weeks of seeing Durrani. He opined that the medical procedures performed on Jones were not reasonable or necessary, that Durrani improperly represented the findings on Jones’s medical images, and that it was a breach of the standard of care to fuse L3-4 instead of L4-5, where the pathology was worse. Dr. Saini criticized Durrani’s operative report for failing to reflect that he had performed a second operation on Jones and for failing to mention the procedure performed at the L4-5 level. He also criticized Durrani’s post- surgery notes for failing to reflect the L4-5 procedure and for improperly reflecting the level at which hardware had been placed. {¶23} Durrani and CAST presented expert testimony from neuroradiologist Dr. Derk Purcell and neurosurgeon Dr. Patrick William McCormick. {¶24} Dr. Purcell opined that Durrani met the standard of care in his treatment of Jones and that he did not exaggerate radiographic findings. He testified that Jones’s post-surgery images provided evidence that Durrani performed a laminectomy and discectomy at L4-5 and showed improvement at the L3-4 level. {¶25} Dr. McCormick testified that Durrani’s treatment of Jones met the applicable standard of care, that the surgeries performed on her were medically indicated, and that Durrani performed the surgeries with the care and skill of a reasonably prudent spine surgeon. He further opined that Durrani did not exaggerate Jones’s symptoms or fraudulently misrepresent the findings on her medical images, and that she derived a benefit from the surgical intervention. He testified that Jones’s post-surgery images did not demonstrate a failed construct or a significant loosening of hardware. His testimony addressed various medical records pertaining to Jones in the years after her surgery with Durrani, and he explained that these records indicated 11  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS that she was not suffering any issues with her back. 2. Kirstin Weisman {¶26} The evidence established that Durrani first performed surgery on Weisman in 2008 at Children’s Hospital to correct kyphosis in her spine.5 Durrani left Children’s after Weisman’s surgery, and she continued to treat with him at CAST. During a March 2009 appointment at CAST, when Weisman was approximately 17 years old, she indicated that she had numbness in her right hip and right inner thigh, as well as pain in her lower and middle back. She indicated that sitting aggravated her pain, but that she did not otherwise struggle with activities of daily living. {¶27} Durrani initially determined that Weisman was having pain around the lateral femoral cutaneous nerve in the thigh, and he prescribed medication, including a steroid treatment. He also informed Weisman that surgery would fix her. Weisman did not obtain much relief from the medication, so Durrani ordered injections in her right SI joint and her right L5-S1 facet joint. Weisman received no relief from the SI joint injection, but she did receive temporary relief from the L5-S1 facet joint injection. To discern the origin of Weisman’s pain, Durrani ordered an L5-S1 diagnostic facet block, from which no relief was obtained. {¶28} Following these injections, Durrani determined that Weisman suffered from advanced L5-S1 facet arthrosis, more marked on the right side, and that she also suffered from a right S1 radiculopathy. His notes indicated that Weisman had exhausted all nonoperative means, including therapy and injections, and that he recommended she receive an L5-S1 bilateral facet fusion. At the same time that he scheduled surgery, Durrani ordered an MRI of Weisman’s lumbar spine and a CT scan. 5 This surgery was not the subject of any claims at trial. 12  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS Weisman testified that Durrani had talked about surgery on each of her visits and stated that it would fix her. {¶29} The radiologist interpreting Weisman’s medical images indicated that she had “nominal posterior facet arthropathy with capsulosynovitis” and “no compressive discopathy in the lumbar spine.” But Durrani indicated that the images reflected “advanced facet arthrosis at the L5-S1 level.” {¶30} Durrani performed the L5-S1 facet fusion on Weisman on December 30, 2009. Weisman testified that she experienced extreme pain in her hip and inner thigh and on the surgery site for approximately 11 months after the surgery. The pain affected her daily activities, and she struggled to bend over and stand or sit for long periods of time. In November 2010, Durrani recommended additional injections, but Weisman elected not to receive them for financial reasons. Weisman saw Dr. Zeeshan Tayeb for her pain in 2014. At that point, she was experiencing pain in her shoulder blade, low back, right hip, right buttock, and inner thigh. Dr. Tayeb recommended pain medication, but Weisman did not want to take the medication. She testified that she has continued to experience pain and has lived her life the best she can, but that she has not seen a doctor to treat her pain since 2014. {¶31} On cross-examination, Weisman was asked, “At what point did you start to think that Dr. Durrani had done something wrong? Six months after surgery?” She responded, “I mean, when I woke up from—I mean, not specifically right when I woke up. I just knew that my hip pain was still there and something just wasn’t right.” Weisman elaborated, “I just knew that the pain was still there in my hip and the inner thigh area. I knew something wasn’t normal.” Counsel asked, “And, at that point, you thought that something had gone wrong with the surgery?” Weisman answered affirmatively. 13  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS {¶32} Weisman presented expert testimony from Dr. Bloomfield, Dr. Wilkey, and Dr. Saini. {¶33} Dr. Bloomfield testified that Durrani’s impressions that Weisman suffered from advanced L5-S1 facet arthrosis that was more marked on the right side and a right S1 radiculopathy were “absolutely wrong.” He explained that Weisman had suffered no symptoms on the left side of her body, so there was no possibility that she would need treatment on that side. He further explained that an S1 radiculopathy would not cause pain in the area that Weisman’s pain was focused. {¶34} Dr. Bloomfield also criticized Durrani for scheduling Weisman’s surgery before examining updated images. He opined that Durrani breached the standard of care in interpreting the medical images and finding that Weiman’s arthrosis was “advanced,” and that Durrani exaggerated the findings on Weisman’s medical images to justify a surgery that was not medically necessary. He further opined that Weisman suffered permanent injury from the surgery and would experience future pain and suffering. Dr. Bloomfield also pointed out that Durrani’s notes improperly reflected that Weisman had received physical therapy. {¶35} Dr. Wilkey testified that Weisman’s medical images did not justify the surgery performed. He opined that Durrani breached the standard of care by operating on Weisman and convincing her to undergo a medically unnecessary surgery, and that the surgery proximately caused her harm by destroying a previously normal joint. He further testified that Weisman would need future treatment for her condition. {¶36} Dr. Saini testified that he disagreed with Durrani’s impression that Weisman suffered advanced facet arthrosis at L5-S1 and opined that Durrani’s interpretation of Weisman’s images caused her to undergo a medically unnecessary surgery. He testified that Durrani made up diagnoses that were not supported by the 14  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS medical images to justify surgery. {¶37} Durrani and CAST presented expert testimony from Dr. Purcell and Dr. McCormick. {¶38} Dr. Purcell testified that Durrani’s interpretations of Weisman’s medical images were reasonable and within the standard of care, and that Durrani met the applicable standard of care in his treatment of Weisman. He explained that Durrani properly determined, through use of injections and by examining medical images, that Weisman’s pain generator was the L5-S1 facet joint, and that the medical images documented Durrani’s diagnosis of facet arthrosis and capsulosynovitis. {¶39} Dr. McCormick testified that Durrani’s treatment of Weisman met the standard of care, and that Durrani carried out the surgery with the skill of a reasonably prudent orthopedic spine surgeon. He testified that Weisman benefitted from the surgery, that the benefit became greater over time, and that the medical records he reviewed contained no evidence that Weisman sought treatment for her pain after 2014. Dr. McCormick also opined that there was no evidence that Durrani fraudulently misrepresented or exaggerated the findings on Weisman’s medical images, and that the images demonstrated that Weisman suffered significant facet arthrosis. He was not critical of the fact that Durrani scheduled Weisman’s surgery before obtaining updated medical images, explaining that the surgery could be canceled if the updated images did not support the diagnosis or planned surgery. 3. Dr. Tayeb {¶40} Weisman and Jones also presented, over objection from Durrani and CAST, excerpts from deposition testimony of Dr. Tayeb, an interventional spine, pain, and sports specialist. The excerpts read to the jury provided that Dr. Tayeb had worked with Durrani at CAST, providing pain management before and after surgery and 15  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS directing the rehabilitation program. {¶41} Dr. Tayeb testified that it did not surprise him to hear that Durrani had told patients he would fix them, as that was a phrase he commonly heard Durrani use. Dr. Tayeb explained that he shadowed Durrani for a period and heard him tell patients they could be paralyzed without surgery. He stated that Durrani pushed for patients to have surgery. Dr. Tayeb further testified that it was not uncommon for Durrani to falsely state that patients had gone through conservative treatment prior to surgery. B. Motion for a Directed Verdict on Weisman’s Claims {¶42} Durrani and CAST moved for a directed verdict on Weisman’s claims, arguing that the evidence presented at trial established that she had not filed her claims within the applicable statute of limitations. In support, they pointed to Weisman’s testimony that she realized within six months of surgery, which would have been approximately June of 2010, that Durrani had done something wrong. But yet, they argued, she did not file a complaint until 2013. {¶43} In response, Weisman argued that she was a minor at the time and that her testimony did not specifically state that Durrani had done something wrong. Rather, she contended, it established she knew after surgery that something was still affecting her and was wrong with her condition, and that she continued to treat with Durrani. Weisman argued that no cognizable event had occurred. {¶44} The trial court denied the motion for a directed verdict without explanation. C. Jury Instructions {¶45} The trial court provided the jury with an instruction on Durrani’s absence from trial, stating, The defendant, Dr. Durrani, has not attended these proceedings 16  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS in person. He is represented here by counsel. You shall not speculate on why he’s not present or consider his absence for any purpose except as instructed below. Dr. Durrani has voluntarily left the jurisdiction, removing himself from plaintiffs’ ability to subpoena him to trial. When a party, such as Dr. Durrani, has relevant evidence or testimony within his or her control, and the party failed to produce that relevant evidence or testimony, that failure gives rise to an inference that the evidence or testimony is unfavorable to that party. {¶46} The court further instructed the jury, “Whether an inference is made rests entirely with you. You may not build one inference upon another inference, but you may make more than one inference from the same facts or circumstances.” {¶47} The jury was also instructed that it must consider each plaintiff’s case separately and that “[a]lthough there are two plaintiffs in these actions, it does not follow from that fact alone that if one plaintiff is entitled to recover, the other plaintiff is entitled to recover. Defendants are entitled to a fair consideration as to each plaintiff's claim, just as each plaintiff is entitled to a fair consideration of that plaintiff's claim against the defendants.” D. Jury Verdicts {¶48} The jury found that Durrani was negligent in his care for and treatment of Weisman, specifically for his lack of conservative-care measures, missing records, and inflated diagnosis. But it found that the negligence was not a proximate cause of harm to Weisman. The jury further found that Durrani fraudulently misrepresented the necessity for surgery and that this fraudulent misrepresentation proximately caused harm to Weisman. It found in favor of Durrani on Weisman’s claims for failure to acquire informed consent and battery. 17  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS {¶49} The jury awarded Weisman $43,943.72 in economic damages for past medical expenses. In noneconomic damages, it awarded her $75,000 for past pain and suffering and $125,000 for future pain and suffering. The jury further awarded Weisman punitive damages in the amount of $300,000. {¶50} Turning to Jones, the jury found that Durrani was negligent for failing to treat her with conservative care, insufficient record keeping, and creating a sense of urgency around surgery. But it found that this negligence was not a proximate cause of harm to Jones. The jury further found that Durrani fraudulently misrepresented the need for surgery and that this fraudulent misrepresentation was the proximate cause of Jones’s harm. The jury found for Durrani on Jones’s claims for lack of informed consent and battery. {¶51} Jones was awarded $103,891.14 in economic damages for past medical expenses and $250,000 in noneconomic damages for past pain and suffering. The jury additionally awarded her $300,000 in punitive damages. E. Post-Trial Motions {¶52} Weisman and Jones filed motions for prejudgment interest. {¶53} Durrani and CAST filed motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and/or a new trial. As relevant to this appeal, the motions argued that the trial court erred in joining Weisman’s and Jones’s cases for trial, that it was error to admit Dr. Tayeb’s hearsay testimony, that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on Durrani’s absence, and that the cumulative effect of all errors warranted a new trial. {¶54} Durrani and CAST also filed motions for a setoff, arguing that they were entitled to a setoff to the jury’s award of damages based on settlements that Appellees had reached with other defendants. {¶55} The trial court denied the motions for judgment notwithstanding the 18  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS verdict and/or a new trial and for a setoff. Following a hearing, the trial court granted Appellees’ motions for prejudgment interest. {¶56} Final orders in both Weisman’s and Jones’s cases were issued on January 22, 2025.6 Appellants now appeal. II. Statute of Limitations {¶57} In their first assignment of error, Appellants argue that the trial court erred in failing to grant their motion for a directed verdict on Weisman’s claims because Weisman’s trial testimony established that the claims were filed outside of the statute of limitations. {¶58} A trial court’s ruling on a motion for a directed verdict is reviewed de novo. Lally v. Mukkada, 2011-Ohio-3681, ¶ 5 (1st Dist.). Pursuant to Civ.R. 50(A)(4), where the trial court, “after construing the evidence most strongly in favor of the party against whom the motion is directed, finds that upon any determinative issue reasonable minds could come to but one conclusion upon the evidence submitted and that conclusion is adverse to such party,” the court shall direct a verdict for the moving party. See id. at ¶ 5. {¶59} The statute of limitations for medical-malpractice claims is set forth in R.C. 2305.113(A), which provides, “Except as otherwise provided in this section, an action upon a medical, dental, optometric, or chiropractic claim shall be commenced within one year after the cause of action accrued.” Appellants argue that Weisman’s trial testimony established that she filed her medical-malpractice claims outside of the one-year statute of limitations set forth in R.C. 2305.113(A). They acknowledge that Weisman was a minor at the time of surgery, so the statute of limitations was tolled 6 On April 8, 2025, Jones and Appellants filed a stipulation that the claims of Darrell Jones were dismissed with prejudice. 19  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS until she turned 18. {¶60} Before turning to the merits of this argument, we set forth the relevant dates that impact our analysis. Durrani performed surgery on Weisman on December 30, 2009, when she was 17 years old. Weisman reached the age of majority on April 21, 2010. She last treated with Durrani in November 2010, and she first filed a lawsuit against Appellants in Butler County on November 26, 2013.7 {¶61} The Ohio Supreme Court has held, “A claim for medical malpractice accrues, and the one-year statute of limitations begins to run, ‘(a) when the patient discovers, or in the exercise of reasonable care and diligence should have discovered, the resulting injury, or (b) when the physician-patient relationship for that condition terminates, whichever occurs later.’” Wilson v. Durrani, 2020-Ohio-6827, ¶ 14, quoting Frysinger v. Leech, 32 Ohio St.3d 38 (1987), paragraph one of the syllabus; see also Hensley v. Durrani, 2013-Ohio-4711, ¶ 8 (1st Dist.) (explaining that Ohio follows the discovery rule to determine when a claim for medical malpractice accrues). {¶62} Under this discovery rule, a cause of action’s accrual “depends upon the existence of a ‘cognizable event.’” Hensley at ¶ 9. The term “cognizable event” has been defined as “‘the occurrence of facts and circumstances which lead, or should lead, the patient to believe that the physical condition or injury of which she complains is related to a medical diagnosis, treatment or procedure that she previously received.’” Id., quoting Flowers v. Walker, 63 Ohio St.3d 546, 549 (1992). Under the discovery rule, “‘[c]onstructive knowledge of facts, rather than actual knowledge of their legal 7 Appellants represent that Weisman first filed suit against them on November 26, 2013, in Butler County before filing in Hamilton County as part of the multi-plaintiff litigation against Appellants in the case numbered A-1604542. This fact is not affirmatively established in the record, but is not challenged by Weisman. For purposes of our statute-of-limitations analysis, we accept Appellants’ representation that Weisman filed the Butler County complaint on November 26, 2013, which is the earliest date a complaint was filed in her case. 20  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS significance’ is sufficient.” Id., quoting Flowers at 549. A patient need not “be aware of the full extent of the injury before there is a cognizable event.” (Emphasis in original.) Allenius v. Thomas, 42 Ohio St.3d 131, 133-134 (1989). {¶63} In determining whether a cognizable event has occurred, a trial court should consider when the injured party became aware, or should have become aware, of the extent and seriousness of his condition; whether the injured party was aware, or should have been aware, that such condition was related to a specific professional medical service previously rendered him; and whether such condition would put a reasonable person on notice of need for further inquiry as to the cause of such condition. Fears v. Midwest Eye Consultants, 2024-Ohio-4611, ¶ 38 (6th Dist.), quoting Hershberger v. Akron City Hosp., 34 Ohio St.3d 1 (1987), paragraph one of the syllabus. {¶64} Weisman’s trial testimony established that she continued to experience pain in her hip, inner thigh, and on the surgery site from the date of surgery (December 30, 2009) through November 2010. The following exchange occurred during Weisman’s cross-examination regarding her recurrent pain and whether she had knowledge of a cognizable event. DEFENSE COUNSEL: Okay. Now, you said after surgery that you didn't get better? WEISMAN: No. DEFENSE COUNSEL: At what point did you start to think that Dr. Durrani had done something wrong? Six months after surgery? WEISMAN: I mean, when I woke up from—I mean, not 21  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS specifically right when I woke up. I just knew that my hip pain was still there and something just wasn’t right. DEFENSE COUNSEL: All right. So you knew immediately that Dr. Durrani had done something wrong? PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL: Objection. THE COURT: Overruled. Go ahead and answer, ma’am. WEISMAN: I didn’t say “immediately.” I just knew that the pain was still there in my hip and the inner thigh area. I knew something wasn’t normal. DEFENSE COUNSEL: Right. And, at that point, you thought that something had gone wrong with the surgery? WEISMAN: Yeah. {¶65} Appellants argue that this exchange demonstrated Weisman’s knowledge that something was wrong with the surgery performed by Durrani, and that this knowledge was a cognizable event triggering the running of the one-year statute of limitations.