[Cite as Darcy v. Med. Univ. of Toledo, 2011-Ohio-885.]

Court of Claims of Ohio

The Ohio Judicial Center 

65 South Front Street, Third Floor 

Columbus, OH 43215 

614.387.9800 or 1.800.824.8263 

www.cco.state.oh.us

DEBORAH DARCY, et al. 

 Plaintiffs 

 v. 

MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF OHIO AT TOLEDO 

 Defendant 

Case No. 2006-01092 

Judge Joseph T. Clark 

Magistrate Holly True Shaver 

JUDGMENT ENTRY

{¶ 1} On November 8, 2010, the magistrate issued a decision recommending 

judgment in favor of plaintiffs. The magistrate determined that Henry Goitz, M.D., 

committed a breach of the standard of care owed to plaintiff, Deborah Darcy, during 

arthroscopic surgery to repair her shoulder tendon.1

{¶ 2} Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(i) states, in part: “A party may file written objections to 

a magistrate’s decision within fourteen days of the filing of the decision, whether or not 

the court has adopted the decision during that fourteen-day period as permitted by 

Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(e)(i). If any party timely files objections, any other party may also file 

objections not later than ten days after the first objections are filed.” Defendant filed 

objections on November 22, 2010. On December 6, 2010, plaintiffs filed a response. 

{¶ 3} The magistrate found that “Dr. Goitz breached the standard of care by not 

thoroughly evaluating the injuries to plaintiff’s shoulder either prior to or during the 

February surgery. As a further result of Dr. Goitz’s failure to identify and repair plaintiff’s 

 1

For the purposes of this decision, “plaintiff” shall refer to Deborah Darcy. 
Case No. 2006-01092 - 2 - JUDGMENT ENTRY

torn subscapularis tendon, plaintiff developed an anterior prominence of her shoulder, 

endured two other unsuccessful surgical procedures performed by Dr. Goitz, and was 

then required to undergo a total joint replacement performed by Dr. Iannotti.” 

{¶ 4} Defendant argues that the magistrate erred in failing to give proper weight 

to the evidence regarding the issues of the standard of care and proximate cause. The 

court disagrees. 

{¶ 5} In reviewing plaintiff’s objections, the “court must conduct an independent 

analysis of the underlying issues, undertaking the equivalent of a de novo determination 

and independently assessing the facts and conclusions contained in the magistrate’s 

decision.” Shihab & Assoc. Co. LPA v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 168 Ohio App.3d 405, 

2006-Ohio-4456, ¶13; Dayton v. Whiting (1996), 110 Ohio App.3d 115, 118. 

{¶ 6} In its first objection, defendant argues that the magistrate erred in finding 

that Robert Cirincione, M.D., was qualified to opine regarding the standard of care 

relevant to the surgical procedure performed by Dr. Goitz. Specifically, defendant 

contends that Dr. Cirincione’s admission that he had never performed an arthroscopic 

rotator cuff repair rendered him incompetent to opine on the standard of care for that 

procedure. 

{¶ 7} The magistrate noted that Dr. Cirincione is board-certified in orthopedic 

surgery, with a specialty in sports medicine; that he uses an arthroscope to examine his 

patients; and that his practice was limited to knee and shoulder surgery. Dr. Cirincione 

testified that the standard of care for an orthopedic surgeon performing a shoulder 

repair is to obtain a complete and accurate history, evaluate the entire rotator cuff joint, 

and repair all injuries in an appropriate and timely manner. 

{¶ 8} The magistrate determined that Dr. Goitz committed a breach of the 

standard of care by not properly evaluating plaintiff’s injuries either prior to or during the 

surgery. Although defendant contends that Dr. Cirincione was not competent to testify 

as an expert as to the standard of care for arthroscopic shoulder surgery, the medical 
Case No. 2006-01092 - 3 - JUDGMENT ENTRY

negligence did not concern the arthroscopic surgical technique used by Dr. Goitz, but 

rather his failure to identify and repair all torn tendons. Indeed, Dr. Cirincione testified 

that he had training and experience in performing arthroscopic examinations. 

Furthermore, Dr. Cirincione’s testimony established that the standard of care for an 

orthopedic surgeon performing such repair is not specific or limited to arthroscopic 

procedures. 

{¶ 9} Even if defendant were to establish that the standard of care for 

arthroscopic shoulder surgery is somehow different from the standard of care for 

general orthopedic surgery, the Supreme Court of Ohio has held that where “fields of 

medicine overlap and more than one type of specialist may perform the treatment, a 

witness may qualify as an expert even though he does not practice the same specialty 

as the defendant.” Alexander v. Mt. Carmel Med. Ctr. (1978), 56 Ohio St.2d 155, 158. 

Furthermore, “a nonspecialist is qualified to testify as an expert when he is familiar with 

the procedure used by the specialist.” Steele v. Buxton (1994), 93 Ohio App. 3d 717, 

719. Admissibility is determined by whether a witness offered as an expert will aid the 

trier of fact in the search for the truth, not whether the witness is the best expert witness 

on the subject. Ishler v. Miller (1978), 56 Ohio St.2d 447, 453; Evid.R. 702. 

{¶ 10} The testimony established that Dr. Cirincione is a board-certified 

orthopedic surgeon who is experienced in arthroscopic examination and that he is 

familiar with the standard of care that should be exercised by an orthopedic surgeon 

with respect to shoulder surgery. Upon review, the court concludes that the magistrate 

did not err in finding that Dr. Cirincione was qualified to opine regarding the standard of 

care in this case. 

{¶ 11} In its second objection, defendant argues that the magistrate erred in not 

finding that plaintiff’s delay in seeking treatment was a proximate cause of her injury. 

However, both Drs. Cirincione and Iannotti opined that the surgery was not performed 

too late to achieve a successful outcome; that Darcy’s prognosis would have been good 

to excellent if all three tendons had been repaired during the February 2004 surgery, 
Case No. 2006-01092 - 4 - JUDGMENT ENTRY

and that Dr. Goitz’s negligence was the proximate cause of Darcy’s permanent 

disability. 

{¶ 12} Based upon the testimony and the MRI report, the magistrate determined 

that Dr. Goitz failed to discover the injuries through careful examination. The magistrate 

did not believe Dr. Goitz’s testimony that he fully examined plaintiff’s rotator cuff and 

that there were no torn or displaced tendons. It is well-settled that the magistrate, as 

the trier of fact, is in the best position to weigh the testimony and assess the credibility 

of witnesses. Seasons Coal Co. v. Cleveland (1984), 10 Ohio St.3d 77, 80. In short, 

the magistrate’s findings are supported by the evidence and defendant’s second 

objection is OVERRULED. 

{¶ 13} Upon review of the record, the magistrate’s decision, and the objections, 

the court finds that the magistrate has properly determined the factual issues and 

appropriately applied the law. Therefore, the objections are OVERRULED and the court 

adopts the magistrate’s decision and recommendation as its own, including findings of 

fact and conclusions of law contained therein. Judgment is rendered in favor of plaintiff. 

The case will be set for trial on the issue of damages. 

 _____________________________________ 

 JOSEPH T. CLARK 

 Judge 

cc: 

 

Anne B. Strait 

Brian M. Kneafsey Jr. 

Assistant Attorneys General 

150 East Gay Street, 18th Floor 

Columbus, Ohio 43215-3130 

Gerald S. Leeseberg 

175 South Third Street 

Penthouse One 

Columbus, Ohio 43215-5134 

AMR/cmd

Filed February 7, 2011 
Case No. 2006-01092 - 5 - JUDGMENT ENTRY

To S.C. reporter February 22, 2011