In a split decision that benefits a physician in a medical malpractice case, the Ohio Supreme Court said recently that expert witnesses are permitted to testify that their opinions are based, in part, on a review of professional literature. The effect of the court's 5-2 opinion was to reinstate a Cuyahoga County jury verdict in favor of Dr. Oscar Nicholson Jr., who was being sued by the estate of a patient who died after elective hernia repair surgery. Dr. Nicholson testified as his own expert defense witness at the trial. The estate objected to the testimony on the basis that his reference to medical and surgical literature should be struck as inadmissible hearsay, but the trial judge overruled the objection. The 8th Ohio District Court of Appeals subsequently reversed the jury verdict and ordered a new trial. The panel said the trial judge had committed prejudicial error by admitting the doctor's references to professional literature. Chief Justice Thomas Moyer, writing for the majority, overturned the appellate court. "There is a difference between a witness's referring to specific statements in professional literature as substantive evidence and an expert witness's referring to the literature as being part of the basis for that expert's opinion," the chief justice said. "While the former reference would be inadmissible hearsay, numerous courts in Ohio have held that the latter reference is admissible. We agree with the decisions in those cases."