Jennifer Garcia’s legal battle against a medical professional and associated health entities over alleged surgical misconduct has taken a pivotal turn. On February 17, 2026, Jennifer Garcia filed an appeal in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Judicial District in Lorain County, Ohio, challenging a previous ruling in favor of Dr. James K. Matheson and other defendants related to her medical malpractice claims.
The case stems from a surgery performed by Dr. Matheson on Mrs. Garcia in February 2020, which involved a total abdominal hysterectomy among other procedures. During this operation, Dr. Matheson removed Mrs. Garcia’s remaining ovary due to its condition, despite her wishes to retain it to avoid medically induced menopause. Mrs. Garcia accused Dr. Matheson and associated health entities—Mercy Health – Regional Medical Center, LLC; Mercy Health Physicians Lorain, LLC; Bon Secours Mercy Health, Inc.; and Mercy Health Physicians Lorain Specialty Care, LLC—of several legal violations including medical negligence, lack of informed consent, battery/lack of consent, and negligent entrustment.
In court documents, Mrs. Garcia claimed that she was assured by Dr. Matheson that her ovary would not be removed unless absolutely necessary—a promise he allegedly broke during the procedure when he encountered unexpected complications with her ovary being encompassed by a cyst larger than anticipated. Despite signing an operative consent form allowing for unforeseen procedures if deemed necessary by the doctor or licensed practitioner during surgery, Mrs. Garcia argued that this did not cover the removal of her ovary without explicit prior consent.
The trial court had previously granted a directed verdict in favor of the defendants on some counts before proceeding to jury trial on others where they were ultimately found not liable for negligence or malpractice as per the jury’s verdict favoring the defendants’ position that the removal was necessary under the circumstances encountered during surgery.
Garcia’s appeal contended that the jury’s decision was against the manifest weight of evidence presented at trial which included testimonies from both parties’ expert witnesses regarding standard care practices and procedural expectations in such surgeries. Her appeal also raised issues with procedural rulings made by the trial court regarding witness exclusions and evidentiary decisions that she believes impacted her ability to fully present her case.
Despite these contentions, Judge Betty Sutton affirmed the lower court’s judgment after reviewing all aspects of evidence and procedural conduct in line with appellate standards emphasizing deference to jury findings unless clear miscarriages of justice are evident—a threshold not met according to this review.
Mrs. Garcia sought reversal based on perceived errors impacting substantial rights but faced an uphill battle given judicial precedents requiring strong justification for overturning fact-finder determinations absent compelling contrary evidence—a challenge compounded by procedural hurdles related to disclosure obligations unmet prior to trial regarding certain expert testimonies.
Represented by attorney Ryan M. Gembala while Erin Siebenhar Hess and Brianna Marie Prislipsky defended Dr. Matheson et al., this case highlights ongoing complexities within medical malpractice litigation concerning patient autonomy versus clinical judgment calls under emergent conditions—a legal landscape continually shaped through appellate scrutiny as demonstrated here (Case No: 21-CV-202837).
Source: 2026Ohio516_Garcia_v_Matheson_DO_Opinion_Ohio_Court_of_Appeals.pdf