The Ohio Supreme Court recently ruled in the case of Moore v. Mercy Medical Center, affirming a lower court's decision regarding the admissibility of expert testimony in a medical malpractice lawsuit. This ruling has significant implications for how expert affidavits are treated in court, particularly in cases involving medical negligence.
The case centers around Cheri Sheree Moore, who alleged that her son, P.C.M., suffered injuries during his birth due to medical malpractice. The ruling impacts Moore and her family, as well as healthcare providers and legal professionals involved in medical malpractice cases.
Background
In 2015, Moore was admitted to Mercy Medical Center to deliver her son. During her labor, she was initially under the care of Dr. Godwin Meniru. After his shift ended, Dr. Albert Domingo took over her care. Moore alleges that her son experienced respiratory distress during labor, leading to serious health issues.
Moore filed a lawsuit against Mercy Medical Center and the doctors involved, claiming that they deviated from accepted medical standards. The case escalated when Dr. Meniru sought summary judgment, arguing that he was not responsible for the alleged malpractice since he was not on duty during a critical period. Moore countered this with an affidavit from her expert witness, Dr. Martin Gubernick, which contradicted his earlier report.
The Ruling
The Ohio Supreme Court, led by Justice Hawkins, ruled on June 23, 2026, that the trial court acted within its discretion by striking Dr. Gubernick's affidavit under the sham-affidavit rule. This rule allows courts to disregard affidavits that contradict previous statements made by the same witness without adequate explanation.
The court ruled, "Once an expert’s report is properly before a court through a sworn affidavit, the court may assess the consistency of the opinions in the report and the affidavit under the sham-affidavit rule."
The court affirmed the Fifth District Court of Appeals' decision, stating that the expert's new opinion in the affidavit contradicted his previous report without sufficient justification. The ruling emphasized that the sham-affidavit rule applies even when the initial statement is unsworn.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for future medical malpractice cases in Ohio. It clarifies that expert affidavits must be consistent with prior reports and that courts can strike contradictory statements to prevent parties from creating sham issues of fact. This decision reinforces the importance of maintaining consistency in expert testimony, which is crucial in legal proceedings.
Healthcare providers and legal professionals must now be more diligent in preparing expert reports and affidavits, ensuring that all opinions are clearly articulated and consistent. The ruling may also discourage parties from attempting to introduce last-minute changes in expert testimony to sway the outcome of a case.
What's Next
Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether this case can be appealed further. However, the ruling sets a precedent for how courts will handle expert testimony in future malpractice cases, potentially influencing similar cases across the state.