COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 60984 : : LAURA JONES, ET AL. : : Plaintiffs-Appellants : : -vs- : JOURNAL ENTRY : AND KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, : OPINION ET AL. : : Defendants-Appellees : : : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: JULY 9, 1992 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil appeal from Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Case No. 153183 JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: APPEARANCES: For Plaintiffs-Appellants: For Defendants-Appellees: LAURA JONES, Pro Se BEVERLY A. HARRIS 12208 Oakfield Avenue D. CHERYL ATWELL Cleveland, Ohio 44105 Gallagher, Sharp, Fulton & Norman Bulkley Bldg., Seventh Floor 1501 Euclid Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44115 -2- ANN McMANAMON, J.: In a pro se appeal, Laura Jones challenges a jury verdict for the defendants in a medical malpractice suit. She raises two assignments of error concerning evidentiary rulings by the court. Upon review, we are compelled to affirm the judgment of the trial court. Laura Jones filed the present action on July 15, 1988 against Kaiser Foundation Hospital, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of Ohio, Ohio Permanente Group and Maurice Soremekum, M.D. on behalf of her minor son, Andre Durham, who is mentally retarded. The complaint alleged that defendants, namely Dr. Soremekum, failed to provide proper prenatal and labor care to Laura Jones, which proximately caused brain damage to her son. The mother also alleged that the defendants deliberately and fraudulently concealed their negligent acts from her. At trial, it was established that Andre Durham was born on September 11, 1981, approximately three months premature. As a result of his early birth, he suffered internal bleeding in his brain, resulting in mental retardation and cerebral palsy. Plaintiff's experts opined that Dr. Soremekum, an obstetri- cian/gynecologist, failed to provide standard and appropriate care with respect to a urinary tract infection Laura Jones purportedly suffered during her pregnancy. They also averred that Dr. Soremekum failed to diagnose and provide appropriate medical treatment with respect to the mother's "incompetent cervix." These experts concluded that, because of these complications, Laura Jones delivered her child prematurely. -3- Defendants' expert testified that Laura Jones did not have an incompetent cervix, nor did she have a urinary tract infection during her pregnancy. The expert concluded that there was nothing Dr. Soremekum, the treating physician, could have done that would have prevented the preterm delivery. Dr. Soremekum told the jury that Laura Jones' premature labor was caused by an "entity unknown." The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants. As a preliminary matter, we note that a substantial portion of the statement of facts in the mother's brief must be stricken pursuant to App. R. 16(D) and 12(A). It is well established that an appellate court is bound by the record before it and may not consider facts not in the record. Lamar v. Marbury (1982), 69 Ohio St. 2d 274, 277. In her brief and at oral argument Laura Jones seeks to introduce matters not presented at trial. She also fails to cite to the transcript. For these reasons, pages 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 of her brief are stricken. In her first assignment of error, Jones argues the court erred by allowing defense counsel to question her on irrelevant matters to her prejudice. Jones cites instances where defense counsel queried her during cross-examination on what changes have occurred in her life since the birth of her son (Tr. 293); whom she married (Tr. 293); and previous pregnancies (Tr. 294). She also cites defense counsel's examination of her mother, Joan Vivian Jones, as to how -4- many times her daughter had been pregnant (Tr. 352); how many abortions she had (Tr. 352); whether she underwent mental health counseling (Tr. 353); and whether her daughter had herpes (Tr. 353). A reviewing court need not consider an error to which a complaining party failed to object at trial. State v. Williams (1977), 51 Ohio St. 2d 112, paragraph one of syllabus. Of those instances where an objection was made by Jones's counsel, the court sustained the objection as to whether Jones had ever had herpes, but overruled objections as to subsequent changes in her life, previous pregnancies, and whether she received mental health counseling. Since no objection was made to the remaining questions, they are deemed waived on appeal. We will therefore determine if the trial court had a basis for permitting counsel's questions concerning "changes" in Jones's life, her "previous pregnancies" and "abortions." Evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact of consequence to the determination of the action more or less probable than it would be without the evidence is relevant and therefore admissible. Evid. R. 401 and 402. It is within the sound discretion of the trial court to decide what evidence is relevant and will assist the trier of fact in determining a fact in issue. State v. Williams (1983), 4 Ohio St. 3d 53; Owens v. Bell (1983), 6 Ohio St. 3d 46. We note that the issue of Jones's abortions was initiated by her own medical experts, in an effort to establish the existence -5- of an unfavorable cervical condition. As a consequence, questions by defense counsel concerning Jones's previous pregnancies and abortions were relevant on the issue of her purportedly incompetent cervix. The defendants sought to demonstrate that Jones did not have such a condition and that there was no indication that Jones's cervix was injured or weakened as a result of these previous abortions. We find, on this basis, that the court had a proper reason for the inclusion of these questions. Clearly, inquiries as to whom Jones married after the birth of her son; who fathered him; her previous prenancies; and whether Jones received counseling were not relevant to any trial issues. Although not relevant, we find these questions did not change the outcome of the trial, which rested on whether Dr. Soremekum's failure to diagnose and/or treat Jones proximately caused the premature delivery. Since the admission of these questions also did not affect any substantial right of Jones, they constitute harmless error. Civ. R. 61. See, also, Cuyahoga County Bd. of Revision, et al. v. Beachcliff-Kingston Apartments, et al. (Sep. 6, 1990), Cuyahoga App. Nos. 57241 and 57242, unreported, at 7 (the admission of irrelevant evidence constitutes harmless error under Civ. R. 61 where the trier of fact did not base its decision on this evidence). The first assignment of error is overruled. -6- In her second assignment of error, Jones argues the court erred in refusing to admit a certain exhibit. The record shows that counsel for both parties and the trial court engaged in a side-bar discussion regarding a disputed exhibit. Thereafter, the court sustained defendants' objection to its admission. No foundation was laid for the exhibit's admission, nor was it proffered for our review. Since Jones failed to proffer the exhibit at trial, there is no basis upon which to review the alleged error. United Department Stores Co. No. 1, et al. v. Continental Casualty Co. (1987), 41 Ohio App. 3d 72, 75. The second assignment of error is accordingly overruled and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Judgment affirmed. -7- It is ordered that appellees recover of appellants their costs herein taxed. The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Common Pleas Court to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rule of Appellate Procedure. JOSEPH J. NAHRA, P.J., and JOHN T. PATTON, J., CONCUR ______________________________ ANN McMANAMON, JUDGE N.B. This entry is made pursuant to the third sentence of Rule 22(D), Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure. This is an announce- ment of decision (see Rule 26). Ten (10) days from the date hereof this document will be stamped to indicate journalization, at which time it will become the judgment and order of the court and time period for review will begin to run. .