The question which naturally arises is whether the determination of superseding cause in this context is a question for the jury. Ohio case law has long held, as a matter of law, that the aggravation of an injury by the subsequent malpractice of a physician never breaks the chain of causation. Assuming that the original tortfeaser was negligent and that his actions caused the original injury, the only question left for the jury is whether the plaintiff herself exercised reasonable care in seeking treatment by a qualified physician. This rule was affirmed and given its common appellation, "the subsequent tortfeasor rule," in Travelers Indemnity v. Trowbridge, where the court held: "[t]he original tortfeasor is responsible for the negligence of the physician because the tortfeasor's negligence created the risk (the injury) and the occasion for the independent negligence of the physician." Since 1884 the rule in Ohio has been that the subsequent negligence of a physician is foreseeable as a matter of law and the question is not one for the jury. If foreseeability of a physician's negligence occurring after a nurse's negligence is a question for the jury, then either the Supreme Court has decided that a nurse's duty is somehow different than all other duties in Ohio or the Court has very discreetly overturned a century of Ohio case law.
Charles Lattanzi, Doctors, Nurses and Superseding Cause: The Demise of the Last in Time Defense, 9 J.L. & Health 303 (1994-1995)