Puckett-Morrissette v. Durrani – Future Medical Expenses Reversed, 2026 Ohio 1444

Jump To

Top Caption Syllabus Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

April 22, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Puckett-Morrissette v. Durrani

Ohio Court of Appeals

• Citations: 2026 Ohio 1444
• Docket Number: C-250067, C-250069, C-250276

• Judges: Nestor

• Opinion

• Authorities (18)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (1.2K)

• PDF

Syllabus

CIV.R. 42 – CIV.R. 50(B) – CIV.R. 59(A) – COMMON QUESTIONS OF LAW OR FACT – CONSOLIDATED TRIALS – EVID.R. 601 – EVID.R. 702 – EXPERT TESTIMONY – FUTURE MEDICAL DAMAGES – JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT – JURY INSTRUCTIONS – MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL – PREJUDGMENT INTEREST – SETOFF – WAIVER: The trial court did not abuse its discretion under Civ.R. 42 by joining plaintiffs' claims for trial where plaintiffs proceeded under similar legal theories, underwent similar surgeries performed by defendant doctor, and presented similar expert witnesses, thus creating common questions of law and fact. [See CONCURRENCE: Concurring in the majority's opinion on this issue but writing separately regarding the proper postjudgment assessment of prejudice from the joinder of trials that reveals no reversible error.] The trial court did not err in admitting testimonial evidence from plaintiffs' experts as defendants' challenges concerning whether an expert was qualified to provide testimony under Evid.R. 601 and whether an expert's testimony was admissible under Evid.R. 702 were meritless. Because defendants consented to a resolution of the issue of past medical damages in the trial court, defendants' appellate arguments regarding past medical damages are waived. The trial court erred by awarding future medical expenses, because the record lacks expert testimony, as to each plaintiff, establishing the anticipated course of future treatment, the likelihood that treatment will be required, and the projected costs associated with that treatment sufficient to sustain the awards of future medical expenses. The trial court erred in denying defendants' request for a setoff because intentional tortfeasors are entitled to a setoff under R.C. 2307.28(A). The trial court did not err in awarding plaintiffs prejudgment interest, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that plaintiffs made good faith efforts to settle and defendants failed to make good faith efforts to settle.

Combined Opinion

[Cite as Puckett-Morrissette v. Durrani, 2026-Ohio-1444.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

SHERRI PUCKETT-MORRISSETTE, : APPEAL NO. C-250067
TRIAL NO. A-1601536
Plaintiff-Appellee, :

vs. :

ABUBAKAR ATIQ DURRANI, M.D., :

and :

CENTER FOR ADVANCED SPINE :
TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
:
Defendants-Appellants,
:
and
:
WEST CHESTER HOSPITAL, LLC,
:
and
:
UC HEALTH,
:
Defendants.
:

DERRILL REYNOLDS, : APPEAL NO. C-250069
TRIAL NO. A-1706444
Plaintiff-Appellee, :

vs. :

ABUBAKAR ATIQ DURRANI, M.D., :

and :

CENTER FOR ADVANCED SPINE :
TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
:
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

Defendants-Appellants, :

and :

WEST CHESTER HOSPITAL, LLC, :

and :

UC HEALTH, :

Defendants. :

CHERYL WYATT, : APPEAL NO. C-250276
TRIAL NO. A-1505970
and :

CHARLES WYATT, :
JUDGMENT ENTRY
Plaintiffs-Appellees, :

vs. :

ABUBAKAR ATIQ DURRANI, M.D., :

and :

CENTER FOR ADVANCED SPINE :
TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
:
Defendants-Appellants,
:
and
:
JOURNEY LITE OF CINCINNATI, LLC,
:
Defendant.
:

This cause was heard upon the appeals, the record, the briefs, and arguments.
For the reasons set forth in the Opinion filed this date, the judgments of the
trial court are affirmed in part, reversed in part, and vacated in part, and the cause is
remanded.
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

Further, the court holds that there were reasonable grounds for these appeals,
allows no penalty, and orders that costs be taxed 50% to Appellants and 50% to
Appellees.
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 4/22/2026 per order of the court.

By:_______________________
Administrative Judge
[Cite as Puckett-Morrissette v. Durrani, 2026-Ohio-1444.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

SHERRI PUCKETT-MORRISSETTE, : APPEAL NO. C-250067
TRIAL NO. A-1601536
Plaintiff-Appellee, :

vs. :

ABUBAKAR ATIQ DURRANI, M.D., :

and :

CENTER FOR ADVANCED SPINE :
TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
:
Defendants-Appellants,
:
and
:
WEST CHESTER HOSPITAL, LLC,
:
and
:
UC HEALTH,
:
Defendants.
:

DERRILL REYNOLDS, : APPEAL NO. C-250069
TRIAL NO. A-1706444
Plaintiff-Appellee, :

vs. :

ABUBAKAR ATIQ DURRANI, M.D., :

and :

CENTER FOR ADVANCED SPINE :
TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
:
Defendants-Appellants,
:
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

and :

WEST CHESTER HOSPITAL, LLC, :

and :

UC HEALTH, :

Defendants. :

CHERYL WYATT, : APPEAL NO. C-250276
TRIAL NO. A-1505970
and :

CHARLES WYATT, :
OPINION
Plaintiffs-Appellees, :

vs. :

ABUBAKAR ATIQ DURRANI, M.D., :

and :

CENTER FOR ADVANCED SPINE :
TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
:
Defendants-Appellants,
:
and
:
JOURNEY LITE OF CINCINNATI, LLC,
:
Defendant.
:

Civil Appeals From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas

Judgments Appealed From Are: Affirmed in Part, Reversed in Part, Vacated in Part,
and Cause Remanded

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: April 22, 2026
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

Statman Harris, LLC, and Alan J. Statman, for Plaintiffs-Appellees Sherri Puckett-
Morrissette, Derrill Reynolds, Cheryl Wyatt, and Charles Wyatt,

Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, Philip D. Williamson, Aaron M. Herzig, Russell S.
Sayre, and Elise L. Marrinan for Defendants-Appellants Abubakar Atiq Durrani,
M.D., and Center for Advanced Spine Technologies, Inc.
[Cite as Puckett-Morrissette v. Durrani, 2026-Ohio-1444.]

NESTOR, Judge.

{¶1} In these consolidated appeals, defendants-appellants Abubakar Atiq

Durrani, M.D., and the Center for Advanced Spine Technologies, Inc., (“CAST”)

(collectively referred to as “Durrani”) appeal the judgments of the Hamilton County

Court of Common Pleas finding Durrani liable to plaintiffs-appellees Sherri Puckett-

Morrissette, Derrill Reynolds, and Cheryl Wyatt (collectively, “plaintiffs”). The trial

court awarded damages to plaintiffs after a joint jury trial. For the following reasons,

only Durrani’s arguments regarding setoff and future medical expenses are

meritorious. Therefore, the trial court’s judgments are affirmed in part, reversed in

part, vacated in part, and the cause is remanded.

I. Factual and Procedural History

{¶2} Plaintiffs sued Durrani after Dr. Durrani performed back surgeries on

them, which plaintiffs alleged were unnecessary.

{¶3} Before seeing Dr. Durrani, Reynolds underwent prior back surgeries.

Specifically, he had a fusion at the L4-L5 level and an anterior cervical decompression

at C6-C7. Reynolds testified that he initially went to see Dr. Durrani for lower back

pain, but Dr. Durrani elected to operate on his neck first. At the L4-L5 level, Dr.

Durrani diagnosed Reynolds with lumbar spinal stenosis, spondylosis, disc herniation,

and foraminal stenosis. Dr. Durrani also noted a failed fusion at C6-C7 and arthritis

and radiculopathy at C5-C6. Dr. Durrani performed a revision surgery at C6-C7 and a

fusion at C5-C6. At a later date, Dr. Durrani also performed a revision on L4-L5.

{¶4} Wyatt also had a previous surgery on C6-C7 before seeing Dr. Durrani.

She also initially went to see Dr. Durrani for lower back pain. Dr. Durrani treated this

pain with epidural injections. Then, Wyatt began experiencing neck pain. Dr. Durrani

diagnosed her with herniated discs and stenosis at the C3-C4 and C4-C5 levels. Dr.
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

Durrani performed an anterior cervical discectomy and fusion on C4-C5 and C5-C6.

Wyatt testified that she believed she was only having surgery on one level of her spine,

but Dr. Durrani performed surgery on two levels.

{¶5} Puckett-Morrissette did not have any prior back surgeries before seeing

Dr. Durrani. However, she did have other medical issues, such as Ehlers-Danlos

syndrome, which is a connective tissue disorder that causes joint hypermobility. She

went to see Dr. Durrani for neck pain. Dr. Durrani’s clinical impression was that

Puckett-Morrissette was experiencing instability at C1-C2, caused by the Ehlers-

Danlos syndrome. Dr. Durrani performed a fusion surgery at C1-C2, placing two

screws in her neck.

{¶6} After a consolidated jury trial, the jury found in favor of plaintiffs on

their claims for negligence, lack of informed consent, battery, and fraud. The jury also

found in favor of Wyatt’s spouse, Charles Wyatt, on his loss of consortium claim.

Plaintiffs moved for prejudgment interest, which the trial court granted. Durrani

moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (“JNOV”), or in the alternative, for a

new trial. Durrani also moved for a setoff. The trial court denied Durrani’s motions,

but applied statutory damages caps to reduce each plaintiff’s punitive damages and

noneconomic damages awards.

{¶7} This appeal followed.1

II. Analysis

{¶8} Durrani raises four assignments of error. First, they argue that the trial

court should have ordered new trials with single plaintiffs, instead of trying Puckett-

Morrissette’s, Reynolds’s and Wyatt’s cases together. Second, Durrani argues that the

1 Appellees Sherri Puckett-Morrissette and Cheryl Wyatt moved this court to dismiss their fraud

claims. This court denied those motions because appellate courts cannot dismiss claims on appeal.

8
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

trial court should have granted their motions for a new trial or JNOV, based on

evidentiary issues. Third, Durrani argues that the trial court should have granted their

motions for a new trial or JNOV, based on damages issues. Fourth and finally, Durrani

argues that the trial court should not have awarded prejudgment interest.

A. First Assignment of Error

{¶9} Durrani’s first assignment of error asserts that the trial court erred by

not ordering new trials with single plaintiffs.

{¶10} In making this argument, Durrani first asks us to overrule our opinion

in Jones v. Durrani, 2024-Ohio-1776 (1st Dist.). In Jones, we held that if actions

involve “common questions of law or fact,” the court may consolidate them for trial.

Id. at ¶ 19, quoting Civ.R. 42(A)(1)(a). We have refused to overrule Jones before and

similarly refuse to do so today. See Boggs v. Durrani, 2026-Ohio-210, ¶ 65 (1st Dist.);

Haggard v. Durrani, 2025-Ohio-5327, ¶ 41 (1st Dist.); Courtney v. Durrani, 2025-

Ohio-2335, ¶ 52 (1st Dist.); Ravenscraft v. Durrani, 2025-Ohio-2900, ¶ 91 (1st Dist.);

Fenner v. Durrani, 2025-Ohio-4477, ¶ 54-55 (1st Dist.).

{¶11} Next, Durrani argues that consolidation was improper under the facts

of these cases. Under this court’s precedent, “where the plaintiffs received similar

surgeries, presented the testimony of similar medical experts on overlapping medical

conditions, and raised common claims of malpractice and fraud based on the same

legal theory[,]” Civ.R. 42(A) permits joinder of claims. Courtney at ¶ 46, citing Jones

at ¶ 25-26. Appellate courts will not reverse the trial court’s decision to consolidate

cases absent an abuse of discretion. Boggs at ¶ 66, citing Ravenscraft at ¶ 82, citing

Jones at ¶ 20.

{¶12} Here, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in consolidating

plaintiffs’ cases for trial. Plaintiffs received similar fusion treatments on the same

9
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

general area of the spine. Plaintiffs presented similar expert testimony to the jury.

While there are factual differences in each case, “Civ.R. 42(A) does not require

identical facts.” Boggs at ¶ 67. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion

in consolidating the cases.

{¶13} Durrani also argues that they were prejudiced by the joint trial,

contending that had the trials been separate, there is a strong chance the outcomes

would have been different. Durrani claims that consolidation was an “end-run around

Evidence Rule 403(A)” and that plaintiffs relied on each others’ cases to reinforce the

point that Durrani was an incapable doctor. They point to the identical punitive

damages awards as an indication that the joint trial prejudiced them.

{¶14} We rejected this argument in Courtney, and do so again here. Courtney,

2025-Ohio-2335, at ¶ 58 (1st Dist.). In Courtney, we reasoned that “the mere fact that

a defendant can articulate some degree of prejudice flowing from Civ.R. 42(A)

consolidation is insufficient to undermine consolidation. Rather, a party . . . must

demonstrate unfair prejudice.” (Emphasis in original.) Id. at ¶ 57, citing Oberlin v.

Akron Gen. Med. Ctr., 91 Ohio St.3d 169, 172 (2001). And, because the purpose of

punitive damages is “‘to punish the tortfeasor and to deter similar conduct[,]’”

identical punitive damages awards do not necessarily indicate unfair prejudice. Id. at

¶ 58, quoting Whetstone v. Binner, 2016-Ohio-1006, ¶ 15.

{¶15} The first assignment of error is overruled.

B. Second Assignment of Error

{¶16} Next, Durrani points to evidentiary issues to argue that the trial court

should have granted their motion for a new trial or JNOV. We review a trial court’s

denial of a JNOV motion de novo. Setters v. Durrani, 2020-Ohio-6859, ¶ 28 (1st

Dist.), citing Pierce v. Durrani, 2015-Ohio-2835, ¶ 10 (1st Dist.), citing Environmental

10
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

Network Corp. v. Goodman Weiss Miller, L.L.P., 2008-Ohio-3833, ¶ 23. In contrast,

we review a trial court’s denial of a motion for a new trial for an abuse of discretion.

Setters at ¶ 29, citing Pierce at ¶ 10.

{¶17} In support of their argument, Durrani alleges that (1) the trial court

improperly permitted Dr. Wilkey to testify, (2) Dr. Saini’s testimony was improper,

and (3) the trial court improperly instructed the jury on Dr. Durrani’s absence.

{¶18} We first examine Dr. Wilkey’s qualifications to testify as an expert under

Evid.R. 601. This rule prohibits a medical expert from testifying in a medical-

malpractice case unless the expert “devotes at least one-half of [their] professional

time to the active clinical practice . . . or to its instruction . . . at either the time the

negligent act is alleged to have occurred or the date the claim accrued . . . in the same

or a substantially similar specialty as the defendant.” Evid.R. 601(B)(5)(b-c).

{¶19} Durrani asserts that Dr. Wilkey devoted less than half his time to clinical

work at the time of trial and thus did not qualify as an expert under Evid.R. 601. But

Dr. Wilkey testified that he volunteers at Five Rivers Health Center and is employed

at United Healthcare. Additionally, he testified that he is a professor of orthopedic

surgery. Ultimately, the record reflects that Dr. Wilkey met the requirements of

Evid.R. 601 to testify as an expert.

{¶20} Next, Durrani argues that Dr. Saini’s testimony was improper under

Evid.R. 702. See Evid.R. 702(B).

{¶21} Durrani takes issue with a few parts of Dr. Saini’s testimony. Dr. Saini

testified about the placement of a screw during Puckett-Morrissette’s surgery. He also

offered general testimony as to whether Dr. Durrani performed surgery correctly and

whether the surgeries helped the patients. Finally, he testified as to informed consent

in Wyatt’s surgery, and what tools Dr. Durrani used in the surgery. Durrani argues

11
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

that Dr. Saini’s testimony was outside of the scope of his expertise, because Dr. Saini

is a radiologist, not a surgeon.

{¶22} We have previously addressed whether Dr. Saini’s similar testimony

exceeded the scope of his expertise. “In Adams, we recognized that a radiologist’s

duties overlap with a surgeon’s because a surgeon’s minimum standard of care

‘includes reviewing diagnostic images before determining whether surgery is

necessary.’” Ravenscraft, 2025-Ohio-2900, at ¶ 140 (1st Dist.), quoting Adams v.

Durrani, 2022-Ohio-60, ¶ 55 (1st Dist.).

{¶23} Like in Ravenscraft, Dr. Saini’s testimony here was within his expertise

as a radiologist. Therefore, the trial court did not err in permitting his testimony.

{¶24} In their final argument under this assignment, Durrani asserts that the

jury instruction regarding Dr. Durrani’s absence was improper. We have already

considered this identical instruction in Jones, 2024-Ohio-1776, at ¶ 30 (1st Dist.),

Ravenscraft at ¶ 134, and Clark v. Durrani, 2025-Ohio-3096, ¶ 36-39 (1st Dist.). In

those cases, we held that the instruction was not an abuse of discretion. We do so

again today.

{¶25} The second assignment of error is overruled.

C. Third Assignment of Error

{¶26} Durrani next challenges the trial court’s denial of JNOV or a new trial

based on damages issues. First, they argue that the trial court erred by not joining

plaintiffs’ health insurers. Second, they assert that the awards of past medical

damages were against the manifest weight of the evidence. Next, Durrani argues that

the trial court should not have allowed future medical damages. Finally, they argue

that the trial court should have allowed a setoff against plaintiffs’ settlements with

other defendants.

12
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

{¶27} Durrani’s first and second arguments under this assignment of error

challenge the trial court’s award of past medical expenses. But Durrani has waived the

issue of past medical expenses for appellate review. In final judgments on post-trial

motions in each case, the trial court held

The parties informed this Court at the January 8th hearing that

they have reached an agreement on the issue of past medical expenses.

Accordingly, it is unnecessary for this Court to retain any amount of [the

awards] for past medical expenses.

Because Durrani consented to a resolution of the issue of past medical expenses in the

trial court, they can no longer challenge the issue on appeal. See Daugherty v.

Daughtery, 2013-Ohio-1934, ¶ 10 (9th Dist.) (“Courts have recognized that a party has

not preserved an issue for appeal when she has entered into a stipulation or agreement

regarding the issue before the trial court.”).

{¶28} In their third argument under this assignment, Durrani argues that the

trial court erred by allowing future medical damages. Durrani asserts that plaintiffs

offered “zero evidence” regarding what their future medical expenses might be.

{¶29} The jury awarded $750,000 in future medical damages to Reynolds,

$630,000 to Puckett-Morrissette, and $480,000 to Wyatt.

{¶30} “A plaintiff’s claim for future medical expenses must be supported by

evidence that reasonably establishes the amount to be incurred in the future.” Potts

v. Durrani, 2023-Ohio-4195, ¶ 58 (1st Dist.), quoting Setters, 2020-Ohio-6859, at ¶

40 (1st Dist.). Future medical expenses awards may not be purely speculative. Bender

v. Durrani, 2024-Ohio-1258, ¶ 136 (1st Dist.).

{¶31} This court considered the type of evidence required to support an award

of future medical expenses in Waller v. Phipps, 2001 Ohio App. LEXIS 4119 (1st Dist.

13
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

Sept. 14, 2001). In Waller, we held that absent expert projection of expected costs and

testimony regarding specific future course of treatment, there is insufficient evidence

to support the jury’s award of future medical expenses. Id. at *12-13. Future medical

expenses awards must be supported by expert testimony regarding the duration,

frequency, kind of care, and costs that plaintiffs could expect in the future. Id. The

expert in Waller did not offer this kind of testimony. Id. Therefore, we held that the

future medical expenses award was not supported by sufficient evidence, and that the

appropriate remedy was to vacate the award. Id. at *14.

{¶32} Here, Dr. Wilkey and Dr. Bloomfield offered some testimony as to

plaintiffs’ expected future medical expenses. However, that testimony was insufficient

to support the jury’s awards.

{¶33} Dr. Wilkey testified that Puckett-Morrissette’s “pain management can

be anywhere from one hundred thousand dollars plus a year to as little as just narcotic

management long-term, which would be . . . $30,000 a year.” He noted that $30,000

was a conservative estimate. Dr. Bloomfield testified that she would have future pain

and suffering, which will require future pain management.

{¶34} Dr. Wilkey testified that Reynolds has a higher than normal chance of

experiencing adjacent segment deterioration, which will require him to undergo pain

management. Dr. Bloomfield testified that Reynolds might need future intervention

at the C5-C6 level, and will incur expenses for pain management.

{¶35} Dr. Wilkey did not testify as to Wyatt. Dr. Bloomfield testified that she

has a “chronic spine problem,” which rendered her more likely than not to require

future pain management, and possible more surgery on the C3-C4 level.

{¶36} Overall, while plaintiffs offered some expert testimony regarding

expected future medical expenses, the testimony in each case was insufficient to

14
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

support the jury’s respective awards, especially considering how high the awards were.

In Puckett-Morrissette’s case, while Dr. Wilkey provided an estimate as to costs, he

did not specify the exact type of treatment that might be required, or how likely it was

that Puckett-Morrissette would have to undergo such treatment. In Reynolds’s and

Wyatt’s cases, no expert testified as to the projected costs of future medical expenses.

We have previously upheld awards for future medical expenses in cases where experts

provided sufficient evidence as to the cost, type of treatment, and likelihood that the

plaintiff will have to undergo such treatment. E.g., Boggs, at 2026-Ohio-210, ¶ 96-98

(1st Dist.) (future medical expenses awards upheld where an expert testified that it was

a medical certainty that plaintiffs would need a fusion procedure at the L4-L5

vertebrae that would cost anywhere between $150,000 to $300,000).

{¶37} Because the record lacks expert testimony, as to each plaintiff,

establishing the anticipated course of future treatment, the likelihood that such

treatment will be required, and the projected costs associated with that treatment, it

contains insufficient evidence to sustain awards of future medical damages.

Accordingly, we vacate the awards for future medical damages.

{¶38} In their last argument under this assignment, Durrani asserts that the

trial court erred by denying their motion for a setoff based on plaintiffs’ settlement

with other tortfeasors. Durrani argues that the Southern District of Ohio’s decision in

Gorsha v. Clark renders our interpretation of R.C. 2301.28(A) in Adams v. Durrani

incorrect. Gorsha v. Clark, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16485 *6-8 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 31,

2022); Adams, 2022-Ohio-60 (1st Dist.).

{¶39} This argument has merit. See Fenner, 2025-Ohio-4477, at ¶ 121 (1st

Dist.); Haggard, 2025-Ohio-5327, at ¶ 83-86 (1st Dist.). In Fenner, we overruled

Adams in part and held that Durrani is entitled to a setoff under R.C. 2307.28(A). Id.

15
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

at ¶ 128. Thus, we similarly hold today that Durrani is entitled to a setoff.

{¶40} We sustain Durrani’s third assignment of error as to the issues of setoff

and future medical expenses. It is overruled in all other respects. The cause is

remanded to the trial court to determine the amount of setoff to which Durrani is

entitled. The awards for future medical damages are vacated.

D. Fourth Assignment of Error

{¶41} In their fourth and final assignment of error, Durrani argues that the

trial court should not have awarded prejudgment interest because plaintiffs did not

make good-faith efforts to settle their cases.

{¶42} “A trial court ‘shall’ award prejudgment interest when it determines that

R.C. 1343.03(C)’s requirements have been met: (1) the party seeking prejudgment

interest must petition the court; and the trial court (2) held a hearing on the motion;

(3) found that the nonmoving party failed to make a good-faith effort to settle; and (4)

found that the moving party made a good-faith effort to settle the case.” Bender, 2024-

Ohio-1258, at ¶ 150 (1st Dist.), quoting Moskovitz v. Mt. Sinai Med. Ctr., 69 Ohio St.3d

638, 658 (1994).

{¶43} Prejudgment interest awards are not discretionary if the trial court

determines that the moving party met the statutory requirements. Id. at ¶ 151. But,

“the trial court has discretion to determine whether a party acted in good faith” based

upon evidence of the parties’ settlement efforts. Id. We will not overturn a trial court’s

prejudgment interest award absent an abuse of discretion. Id.

{¶44} The Supreme Court of Ohio defines good faith in the negative. “A party

did not fail to make a good-faith pretrial effort to settle when it ‘(1) fully cooperated in

discovery proceedings, (2) rationally evaluated [its] risks and potential liability, (3)

[did] not attempt[] to unnecessarily delay any of the proceedings, and (4) made a good

16
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

faith monetary settlement offer or responded in good faith to an offer from the other

party.’” Id. at ¶ 153, quoting Moskovitz at 658-659.

{¶45} In finding that plaintiffs were entitled to prejudgment interest here, the

trial court found that the plaintiffs made good faith efforts to settle their cases.

Durrani argues that plaintiffs did not make good faith efforts to settle, because

plaintiffs made an oral settlement demand of $400,000 on the first day of trial at the

“eleventh hour[.]”

{¶46} The trial court here did not abuse its discretion in finding that plaintiffs

made good faith efforts to settle their cases. See Boggs, 2026-Ohio-210, at ¶ 108 (1st

Dist.) (holding that where plaintiffs’ pretrial settlement offers were based on

objectively reasonable beliefs that they could be awarded those amounts, plaintiffs’

demands were made in good faith).

{¶47} Notably, Durrani leaves out the trial court’s finding that they failed to

make a good faith effort to settle. In June 2024, Durrani made a global settlement

offer of $4,000,000 to all remaining plaintiffs. Approximately 400 plaintiffs

remained at that time. Accordingly, had plaintiffs accepted that offer, each plaintiff

would have received roughly $10,000 (well below what plaintiffs received at trial).

{¶48} In Bender, we held that because Durrani made no settlement offers,

“[t]here was some competent, credible evidence supporting the trial court’s bad faith

finding.” Bender, 2024-Ohio-1258, at ¶ 160 (1st Dist.).

{¶49} The facts are slightly different here, because Durrani did make a global

settlement offer. But given how low that offer was, there is nothing in the record to

show that the trial court abused its discretion when it determined that Durrani did not

make a good faith effort to settle. “A trial court has wide discretion in deciding whether

to award prejudgment interest based on evidence of the parties’ settlement efforts.”

17
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

Id. at ¶ 151, quoting Jeffrey v. Marietta Mem. Hosp., 2013-Ohio-1055, ¶ 80 (10th

Dist.).

{¶50} The trial court did not err in awarding prejudgment interest. The fourth

assignment of error is overruled.

III. Conclusion

{¶51} Durrani’s first, second, and fourth assignments of error are overruled.

The third assignment of error is sustained as it relates to setoff and future medical

expenses. It is overruled in all other respects.

{¶52} The awards for future medical expenses are vacated. The judgments are

reversed in part and the cause is remanded for the trial court to determine the amount

of setoff to which Durrani is entitled. The judgments are affirmed in all other respects.

Judgment accordingly.

MOORE, J., concurs.
ZAYAS, P.J., concurs separately.

ZAYAS, P.J., concurring separately.

{¶53} In this appeal, we are once again presented with a number of issues that

this court has previously addressed in similar cases concerning defendants-appellees

Durrani and CAST. I concur in the majority’s opinion where—as set forth in the

majority’s opinion—this appeal is, in large part, resolved by looking to the past

precedent of this court. See generally, e.g., Worley v. Durrani, 2025-Ohio-2245, ¶ 18

(1st Dist.), quoting Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Three-C Body Shop, Inc., 2020-Ohio-2694,

¶ 13 (10th Dist.) (“‘Under the doctrine of stare decisis, courts follow controlling

precedent, thereby creating stability and predictability in our legal system.’”).

{¶54} I write separately to note and adopt my concurrences in Fenner v.

Durrani, 2025-Ohio-4477, ¶ 130, 133-147 (1st Dist.), and Boggs v. Durrani, 2026-

18
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

Ohio-210, ¶ 114-123 (1st Dist.), clarifying the proper postjudgment considerations

when assessing prejudice from the joinder of trials under Civ.R. 42. Like in those

cases, I concur with the majority’s resolution of the first assignment of error where the

Durrani and CAST have failed to show that reversal on the basis of actual prejudice

was warranted here.

19