|
Ohio Supreme Court Upholds Tort Reform
On December 27, 2007 the Ohio Supreme Court issued an opinion in Arbino v. Johnson & Johnson and
upheld the constitutionality of statutory limitations on noneconomic and punitive damages as enacted
Ohio Senate Bill 80. Another case, Groch v. General Motors Corp was decided by the Ohio Supreme Court on
February 21, 2008 and upheld the workers' compensation subrogation statutes, the statute of repose for products
liability, among other things.
Information, briefs and orders in the Arbino and Groch
cases
Ohio Supreme Court Clarifies Appealability of
Sovereign Immunity Defense
On October 3, 2007, the Ohio Supreme Court decided Hubbell v. City of Xenia, clarifying confusion among Ohio appellate
courts regarding the application of R.C. 2744.02(C) to claims of sovereign immunity by political subdivisions.
R.C. 2744.02(C) provides: “An order that denies a political subdivision or an employee of a political
subdivision the benefit of an alleged immunity from liability provided in this chapter or any other provision of the law is a final order.”
The Court held that a trial court’s denial of a motion in which a political subdivision or its employee seeks immunity under R.
C. Chapter 2744 denies the benefit of an alleged immunity and is therefore a final, appealable order pursuant to R.C. 2744.02(C).
The question before the Court was whether an order denying a political subdivision’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of sovereign immunity -- because genuine issues of material fact are present -- is a final, appealable order pursuant to R.C. 2744.02(C).
The Court reasoned that the plain language of the R.C. 2477.02(C) indicated that the statute was not limited to orders delineating a “final” denial of immunity. Instead, the statute defines as “final” a denial of a “benefit” of an “alleged” immunity, not merely a “denial of immunity.” Therefore, the statute does not require a final denial of immunity before the political subdivision has the right to an interlocutory appeal. The Court also rejected the lower courts’ policy-based rationale and, instead, found that judicial economy was better served by a plain reading of the statute. The Court noted: “As the General Assembly envisioned, the determination of immunity could be made prior to investing the time, effort, and expense of the courts, attorneys, parties, and witnesses pursuant to amendments made to R.C. 2744.02(C) and 2501.02.”
While this is the first time the Court has definitely ruled on this statutory provision, it has been the
subject of much litigation over the years since it was first enacted as part H.B. 350 in January 1997. After H.B. 350 was held
unconstitutional in its entirety in State ex rel. Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers v. Sheward (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 1409,
this provision was re-enacted in 2002.
Although it may have been long in coming, Hubbell is an important decision for all entities and persons subject to the immunities provided in Chapter 2744, as it allows them to appeal a decision denying immunity before having to proceed to a costly and perhaps unnecessary trial.
The 4-3 opinion, was written by Justice Lundberg Stratton. Justices Pfeifer, O’Connor and Lanzinger dissented.
Full text of Hubbell v.
City of Xenia.
Ohio Supreme Court Rules on Excessive Damages
On October 25, 2007, the Ohio Supreme Court issued a decision in Harris v. Mt. Sinai Medical Center (originally
captioned as McLeod v. Mt. Sinai Medical Center,
ordering a new trial when excessive damages are shown.
At the trial court level, a jury rendered a $30 million verdict against medical malpractice defendants. (No punitive damages were
awarded.) The trial judge vacated the
verdict for several reasons,
including the improper conduct of counsel, erroneously admitted evidence, and because the verdict was influenced
by the passion and prejudice of the jury.
The Eighth District Court of Appeals referred to the verdict as "manifestly excessive" but
instead of ordering a new trial, the court of appeals remanded the case for consideration of remittitur
(ruling by a judge lowering the amount of damages granted by a jury).
The Ohio Supreme Court decided the case on October 25, 2007 and determined that a new trial is warranted when there is
a finding of an excessive verdict.
Bricker & Eckler represents amici curiae Ohio Hospital Association, Ohio State Medical Association
and American Medical Association and argued that the only proper remedy under the circumstances is a
new trial, and discussed the impact on Ohio's health care system if verdicts such as this are not overturned.
Ohio Supreme Court decision
Brief of amici curiae Ohio Hospital Association, Ohio State Medical Association
and American Medical Association
Ohio Supreme Rules on Malpractice Expert Affidavit
The Ohio Supreme Court issued a decision on October 24, 2007 in Manley v. Marsico, involving the
failure of the plaintiff in
a malpractice case to file the required affidavit of merit. The question before the Court was whether
an immediate appeal from a decision denying dismissal for failure to comply is permitted. The Supreme Court held that
such decision denying dismissal is not a final appealable order.
Bricker & Eckler case synopsis and text of the decision
Ohio Supreme Court Rules on Collateral Source,
Discounted Medical Bills
In Robinson v. Bates, the appellate court had held that the bill for medical services (reflecting the full amount of charges
prior to any contractual discount) could be submitted to establish a plaintiff's damages, but the amount paid by the plaintiff's health insurer as
payment in full could not be presented to the jury. Under this ruling, damage awards would likely be inflated as the
only evidence the jury could consider was the full amount of the medical bill, including an amount that no one was ever required to pay.
The Ohio Supreme Court disagreed with the appellate court in a December 20, 2006 ruling and determined that the difference between
the original bill for medical services and what a medical provider actually accepts as payment in full is not a "benefit" that can be
excluded from evidence under the collateral source rule. Rather, the amount the medical provider pays is admissible evidence that the jury can consider.
Medical Bill "Write-Offs" are Not Benefits Under the Collateral Source Rule
Article by Bricker & Eckler attorneys on the Robinson case
Full text of Ohio Supreme Court decision
Appeals Court Decides Important MR/DD Case
On November 14, 2006 , in a long-awaited and unanimous opinion, the Ohio Tenth District Court of Appeals
recognized and affirmed the role of county MR/DD boards, including the boards’ use of service contracts.
The Court rejected, in toto, the assertions of the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services and the Ohio Provider Resource Association
that the role of the county boards in implementing Ohio’s Medicaid Waiver program violates federal Medicaid law.
On April 18, 2007, the Ohio Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction of the appeal on Proposition of Law No. IV: County service contracts for Medicaid recipients and Medicaid service providers are preempted and prohibited by federal Medicaid law.
Bulletins, briefs and orders relating to Thompson v. Hayes
Valentine v. Conrad
On July 26, 2006, the Ohio Supreme Court decided Valentine v. Conrad, affirming the lower courts’ stringent requirements for the
admissibility of expert testimony. In 2005, the Ohio Manufacturers' Association joined forces with other organizations to file an
amicus curiae brief in the Ohio Supreme Court, and urged the Court to affirm the decision of the court of appeals.
Full text of the Valentine
decision
Bricker & Eckler case synopsis
|
