COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 72823 WELTHINE HODGE : : Plaintiff-Appellant : : JOURNAL ENTRY -vs- : AND : OPINION SHAWN KING : : Defendant-Appellee : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: JULY 16, 1997 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: CIVIL APPEAL FROM THE COMMON PLEAS COURT CASE NO. CV-310287 JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellant: ARTHUR E. DOMBEK (#0031329) MICHAEL F. SCHMITZ (#0064842) LEVEY & GRUHIN 1468 W. 9th Street, Suite 750 Cleveland, Ohio 44113-1200 For Defendant-Appellee: MATTHEW J. GRIMM (#0065050) WILLIAMS & SENNETT CO. L.P.A. 2241 Pinnacle Parkway Twinsburg, OH 44087-2367 SPELLACY, J.: Plaintiff-appellant Welthine Hodge ( appellant ) appeals from the directed verdict in favor of defendant-appellee Shawn King in a negligence action brought after an automobile accident. -2- Appellant assigns the following error for review: I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING DEFENDANT'S DIRECTED VERDICT MOTION BASED ON THE FACT THAT NO MEDICAL TESTIMONY WAS PRESENTED TO ESTABLISH A CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN THE SUBJECT ACCIDENT AND INJURIES WHEN (1) PLAINTIFF PRESENTED TESTIMONY AND EXHIBITS EVIDENCING PAIN FOLLOWING THE ACCIDENT, AND THAT NO SUCH PAIN PREVIOUSLY EXISTED; AND (2) IT IS A MATTER OF COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENTS MAY PRODUCE CERTAIN INJURIES. Finding the appeal to lack merit, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. I. Appellant filed a complaint sounding in negligence against King for injuries appellant allegedly received in an automobile accident which occurred on December 5, 1994. In the complaint, appellant averred that, as a result of the accident, she suffered injuries to her back, neck, and other unspecified areas of her body causing her to incur medical bills and lost wages. Appellant stated that she believed the injuries to be permanent in nature which would cause her future pain and suffering as well as medical expenses. The case came to trial on June 10, 1997. Appellant testified that, on the day of the accident, she and Eric Bullock drove to Randall Park Mall to return a VCR to Sears Department Store. Appellant's automobile was in the middle lane in the mall lot when appellant decided to make a left turn. She activated her left turn signal and proceeded to turn. King's vehicle was behind that of appellant's and struck appellant's automobile in the area of the -3- driver's side door. As a result of the impact, appellant was jerked around but did not recall hitting any part of the inside of the car. Appellant had no visible injuries such as cuts or bleeding. Appellant did not feel any pain immediately following the accident. After making a report to mall security, appellant and Bullock returned home. Appellant reported that, after she settled down, she noticed an aching in her back and neck. Appellant never had any problems with her neck or back prior to the accident. Later that day, appellant and Bullock went to the emergency room at St. Alexis Hospital. There, x-rays were taken of appellant's back and she was given pain medication. Appellant was instructed to follow up the emergency room visit with her family physician. That night appellant experienced a painful headache. She missed three days of work. Appellant visited her family physician, Dr. Mobasseri, at the Cleveland Therapy Center. Appellant complained of lower back and neck pain as well as headaches. Appellant testified she received treatment from Dr. Mobasseri for at least eight weeks as a result of the injuries caused by the accident. She stopped physical therapy sessions due to the expense. Appellant's injuries affected her ability to work and to care for her young son. Appellant stated she still is experiencing problems with her neck. Eric Bullock, appellant's passenger, testified that appellant was in good heath prior to the accident but complained of neck and back pain after the accident and had difficulty in caring for their son. Bullock stated that he also was injured in the accident. -4- Appellant's grandfather testified that appellant never mentioned any back or neck problems before the accident and that the accident affected appellant a great deal. At the close of appellant's case-in-chief, the trial court granted the defense motion for a directed verdict. The trial court made the ruling because appellant failed to present any medical testimony with regard to the claimed injuries. II. In her assignment of error, appellant contends the trial court erred by granting King's motion for a directed verdict due to the lack of medical testimony. Appellant relies on a common knowledge exception to the provision that the causal connection between an injury and the tort must be established by expert medical testimony. Appellant asserts that she did present evidence of her physical injuries by way of her testimony, the testimony of her witnesses, and medical records. Appellant argues that it is a matter of common knowledge that motor vehicle accidents may produce injuries to the back and neck. Therefore, she was not required to present medical testimony to support her claim against King. Civ.R. 50 (A)(4) provides: When a motion for a directed verdict has been properly made, and 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 sustain the motion and direct a verdict for the moving party as to that issue. When ruling on a motion for a directed verdict, the trial -5- court's function in a jury trial is not to weigh the evidence but to determine whether there is any evidence of substantial probative value in support of the nonmoving party's claim. Eldridge v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. (1985), 24 Ohio App.3d 94, 96. The determination to be made is not whether one set of facts is more persuasive than another but whether only one result could be reached under the theories of law presented in the complaint. Id.The Civ.R. 50(A) test looks to the sufficiency of the evidence on each element of a claim to take the case to the jury. Ruta v. Breckenridge-Remy Co. (1982), 69 Ohio St.2d 66. The general rule is that a directed verdict is appropriate only where the party opposing the motion fails to adduce any evidence on the essential elements of his claim or defense. O'Day v. Webb (1972), 29 Ohio St.2d 215. Therefore, a motion for a directed verdict presents a question of law as opposed to a question of fact. Id. In Darnell v. Eastman (1970), 23 Ohio St.2d 13, syllabus, the court held: Except as to questions of cause and effect which are so apparent as to be matters of common knowledge, the issue of causal connection between an injury and a specific subsequent physical disability involves a scientific inquiry and must be established by the opinion of medical witnesses competent to express such opinion. In the absence of such medical opinion, it is error to refuse to withdraw that issue from the consideration of the jury. Appellant argues a directed verdict was error as she presented evidence on the essential elements of her claim and because expert testimony was not required as it is common knowledge that -6- automobile accidents may result in neck and back injuries. In Davis v. D&T Limousine Service, Inc. (June 1, 1994), Cuyahoga App. Nos. 65683, 66027, unreported, an employee filed a claim for workers' compensation for injuries received in an automobile accident. The worker claimed injuries to his neck, shoulder, and back as a result of the accident. This court held that only the injury to the claimant's shoulder involved a matter within common knowledge, making medical testimony unnecessary. However, proof that the accident caused the employee's acute myofascitial strain to the neck and acute lumbrosacral strain of his back were beyond the scope of common knowledge, necessitating expert medical testimony. Based on the holding of Davis, appellant was required to provide expert medical testimony in support of her claims of injury to her neck and back. In her complaint, appellant alleged permanent injuries as a result of the accident. Without expert testimony as to how long in the future the claimed pain and suffering of the injuries will continue, a jury may not consider the issue of permanent injuries. Jimenez v. Puszak (March 11, 1982), Cuyahoga App. No. 44304, unreported. As appellant did not have any expert medical testimony, the issue of permanent injury was properly removed from the jury's consideration. Appellant's assignment of error is overruled. Judgment affirmed. -7- It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant his 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 Rules of Appellate Procedure. ANN DYKE, P.J. and DIANE KARPINSKI, J. CONCUR. LEO M. SPELLACY JUDGE N.B. This is an announcement of the court's decision. See App.R. 22(B), 22(D) and 26(A); Loc.App.R. 27. This decision will be journalized and will become the judgment and order of the court pursuant to App.R. 22(B) unless a motion for reconsideration with supporting brief, per App.R. 26(A), is filed within ten (10) days of the announcement of the court's decision. The time period for review by the Supreme Court of Ohio shall begin to run upon the journalization of this court's announcement of decision by the .