The Ohio Court of Appeals has upheld a jury's decision in favor of the Cleveland Clinic Foundation in a medical malpractice case involving the estate of Michelle Protich. The court ruled that the trial court did not err in its decisions regarding evidence, juror selection, and the standard of care in the case. This ruling affects the Protich family, who alleged negligence in the medical care provided to Michelle, leading to her death shortly after a kidney transplant.

Ryan S. Protich, acting as the administrator of his late wife Michelle's estate, filed the appeal after a jury trial found in favor of the Cleveland Clinic. The case stemmed from Michelle's kidney transplant on April 18, 2023, after which she experienced severe complications that ultimately resulted in her death. The court's decision, released on October 29, 2026, confirmed the jury's verdict and affirmed the trial court's judgment.

The dispute began when Michelle was admitted to the Cleveland Clinic for a kidney transplant. She had a history of health issues, including an aortic dissection, which required her to take blood thinners to prevent clotting. After the surgery, she was discharged with instructions regarding her medication. However, complications arose shortly after her discharge, leading to her death from a retroperitoneal bleed.

Ryan Protich claimed that the Cleveland Clinic was negligent in its care, arguing that the medical staff failed to properly monitor Michelle's condition and provide adequate instructions after her surgery. The case was brought to the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, where both sides presented expert testimony regarding the standard of care and causation. The jury ultimately sided with the Cleveland Clinic, finding that the delay in Michelle's return to the hospital was not foreseeable and thus not a result of medical negligence.

In its ruling, the Ohio Court of Appeals, led by Judge Eileen T. Gallagher, addressed several key issues raised by Ryan Protich. First, the court ruled that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the Cleveland Clinic to present evidence related to foreseeability and comparative fault. The court noted that foreseeability is relevant in establishing a physician's standard of care and that the jury was properly instructed on this matter.

The court ruled, "Evidence regarding the events that occurred between the time of Ryan’s phone call with Dr. Gross and Michelle’s subsequent readmission to the hospital was relevant to the Estate’s claims of negligence against the Clinic, the foreseeability of injury, and the proximate cause of Michelle’s injury."

Furthermore, the court found that the trial court acted appropriately in admitting the discovery depositions of Michelle's treating physicians. The court stated that these physicians were not hired experts but rather party witnesses with personal knowledge of the medical care provided to Michelle. As such, their testimony was deemed admissible without the need for formal expert qualification.

Additionally, the court addressed Ryan's concerns regarding the juror selection process. He argued that a juror, identified as Juror No. 7, should have been dismissed for cause due to her background in the medical field. However, the court found that the juror had been forthcoming about her experience and that the trial court acted within its discretion in denying the request for her dismissal.

The court ruled, "There is nothing to suggest that Juror No. 7 intentionally concealed the fact that she was the medical director of this radiology coronary unit."

The court's decision has significant implications for medical malpractice cases in Ohio. It reinforces the importance of establishing foreseeability in medical negligence claims and clarifies the admissibility of testimony from treating physicians. This ruling may influence how similar cases are litigated in the future, particularly regarding the standards of care and the role of jurors in evaluating expert testimony.

Looking ahead, Ryan Protich may have the option to appeal the decision to the Ohio Supreme Court, although the likelihood of such an appeal succeeding remains uncertain. The court's ruling in this case sets a precedent for how medical malpractice claims are handled in Ohio, particularly in relation to the evidence presented and the qualifications of expert witnesses.