Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court held that a negligent credentialing is a separate and independent claim from medical negligence but that a negligent credentialing claim cannot proceed without either a simultaneous or prior adjudication of or stipulation to medical negligence.At issue was whether a hospital's grant of staff privileges to a physician, otherwise known as credentialing a physician, confers a duty upon the hospital that is separate and independent of the duty the physical owes to the hospital's patients. If so, the question remained whether a patient's negligent credentialing claim can proceed in the absence of a prior adjudication or stipulation that the physician was negligent in his care of the patient. The trial court in this case granted the hospital's motion for summary judgment on the negligent credentialing claim. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) a negligent credentialing claim cannot proceed without either a simultaneous or prior adjudication of or stipulation that a doctor committed medical malpractice; and (2) because such an adjudication or stipulation was not present in this case, the negligent credentialing claim was properly dismissed. View "Walling v. Brenya" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied a writ of mandamus sought by Walmart, Inc. ordering the Industrial Commission of Ohio to reverse its decision awarding Dianna Hixson temporary total disability (TTD) compensation on the basis of State ex rel. Klein v. Precision Excavating & Grading Co., 119 N.E.3d 386 (Ohio 2018), holding that Klein applies prospectively only.Before the Supreme Court issued Klein, the Commission awarded Hixson TTD compensation. After Klein was released, Walmart, Hixson's former employer, filed this action seeking a writ of mandamus ordering the termination of Hixson's TTD compensation after the date notified Walmart of her retirement. The court of appeals granted the writ, concluding that the Commission abused its discretion by awarding TTD compensation for the period following Hixson's retirement. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Klein does not apply retroactively and should be applied prospectively only. View "State ex rel. Walmart, Inc. v. Hixson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals reversing the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Heights Chiropractic Physicians, LLC, for the negligence of its employee, chiropractor Don Bisesi, D.C. even though the trial court had dismissed Plaintiff's direct claim against Dr. Bisesi, holding that Heights Chiropractic could not be held vicariously liable for Dr. Bisesi's alleged negligence.In a refiled complaint, Plaintiff claimed that Dr. Bisesi acted negligently when he applied excessive pressure to her back, causing her left breast implant to rupture and that Heights Chiropractic was liable for Dr. Bisesi's negligence. The trial court granted Dr. Bisesi's motion to dismiss on the ground that Plaintiff did not validly serve him with her refiled complaint and then granted Heights Chiropractic's motion for summary judgment. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Plaintiff failed timely to serve Dr. Bisesi with her refiled complaint, and because her cause of action against Dr. Bisesi had expired, her cause of action against Dr. Bisesi was extinguished by operation of law. View "Clawson v. Heights Chiropractic Physicians, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals granting a writ of mandamus ordering the Industrial Commission of Ohio to reverse its decision awarding Appellant temporary-total-disability (TTD) compensation after sustaining a work injury, holding that the Commission's order was neither unsupported by evidence in the record nor was it contrary to law.Appellant gave Appellee two weeks' notice of her intention to resign and subsequently sustained a work injury. The Commission awarded Appellant TTD compensation. The court of appeals granted a writ ordering the Commission to reverse its decision because Appellant had resigned from her employment prior to her injury. Relying on the Supreme Court's opinion in State ex rel. Klein v. Precision Excavating & Grading Co., 119 N.E.3d 386 (Ohio 2018), the court of appeals granted the writ. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the decision in Klein did not redefine voluntary abandonment of the workforce as voluntary abandonment of the injured worker's position; and (2) the Commission did not abuse its discretion in determining that, but for her work injury, Appellant would have remained gainfully employed. View "State ex rel. Ohio State University v. Pratt" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals concluding that prevailing parties who were awarded reasonable attorney fees and punitive damages in a tort case involving malicious conduct may not also recover the attorney fees that they incur in successfully defending their judgment, holding that the court of appeals erred.The trial court awarded the prevailing parties attorney fees and expenses, but the court of appeals reversed the trial court's decision regarding attorney fees. On remand, the prevailing parties moved to modify their motion for attorney fees to include a request for "fees incurred in appellate litigation." The court of appeals reversed the portion of the award of attorney fees for appellate work, concluding that Ohio law does not permit recovery of attorney fees incurred at the appellate level except when a remedial statute so provides. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that when parties are awarded punitive damages at trial, they may also recover reasonable attorney fees that they incur successfully defending their judgments on appeal. View "Cruz v. English Nanny & Governess School" on Justia Law

In this civil suit against Ottawa County, an uncharted county, the Supreme Court held that the County was not sui juris and therefore must be sued in the name of its board of commissioners.Plaintiff filed a complaint against Ottawa County for negligence, wrongful death, and violation of a nursing home resident's rights. As defendant, Plaintiff named "County of Ottawa d/b/a Ottawa County Riverview Nursing Home" but did not name the Ottawa County Board of Commissioners. Riverview was owned and run by the County, and its employees were employees of the County. Riverview moved for summary judgment, arguing that the County may be sued only by naming its board of commissioners as the defendant because an uncharted county is not sui juris. The trial court granted summary judgment without addressing the sui juris issue. The court of appeals reversed, rejecting Riverview's sui juris argument. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case, holding that Ottawa County is not sui juris, and the court of appeals erred in determining otherwise. View "Estate of Fleenor v. Ottawa County" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed this appeal from the decision of the common pleas court entering a temporary restraining order (TRO) prohibiting Appellants from publishing the personal identifying information of Ryan Olthaus, a Cincinnati police officer, holding that the appeal was moot.Olthaus filed a complaint against Appellants alleging, among other claims, defamation and false-light invasion of privacy. The common pleas court granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) restraining Appellants from publicly disseminating Olthaus's personal identifying information. Appellants appealed the TRO. The court of appeals concluded that the TRO was not a final, appealable order. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that this matter was moot because the TRO expired. View "M.R. v. Niesen" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted the original actions filed in this Court seeking a writ of mandamus and a writ of prohibition to compel Judge Megan E. Shanahan to allow M.R. to proceed in a lawsuit using a pseudonym and partially sealing M.R.'s affidavit at his request, holding that Judge Shanahan abused her discretion by allowing M.R. to proceed using a pseudonym.M.R., a Cincinnati police officer using a pseudonym, filed a complaint for injunctive relief alleging that Defendants, several people, had publicly made the false claim that he was a white supremacist. M.R. filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and an affidavit in support of the motion along with his complaint. Judge Shanahan granted the request. Relators, the Cincinnati Enquirer and Eugene Volokh, filed separate actions seeking access to M.R.'s affidavit and to prevent Judge Shanahan from continuing to permit M.R. to use a pseudonym. The Supreme Court granted the writs, holding that M.R.'s privacy interests did not substantially outweigh the presumption of open judicial proceedings. View "State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Shanahan" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals granting a writ ordering the Industrial Commission of Ohio to vacate its order awarding compensation to Cami Bowman, holding that the court of appeals correctly concluded that the Commission abused its discretion.Bowman sought compensation for the permanent partial loss of her sight based on a seventy percent bilateral loss of vision. The Commission awarded compensation based on only a forty-five percent loss of sight in the left eye, maintaining a prior award based on a sixty-seven percent loss of sight in the right eye. The court of appeals granted Bowman a writ ordering the Commission to vacate its order and award her requested compensation, ruling that the Commission abused its discretion by relying on a portion of a physician's report that the physician had disclaimed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Commission failed to base its decision on medical evidence. View "State ex rel. Bowman v. Industrial Commission" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court declined in this case to recognize an exception to the general rule that an adjacent landowner generally owes no duty of care to a motorist who leaves the regularly traveled portion of the road and strikes a stationary object in the right-of-way, holding that Defendants in this case did not owe a duty of care to a motorist with respect to their mailbox.Plaintiff sustained catastrophic injuries as a result of his collision with Defendants' reinforced mailbox after hitting a patch of ice and leaving the ordinarily traveled portion of the road. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants, concluding that they owed no duty of care to Plaintiff. The court of appeals affirmed. On appeal, Defendants asked the Supreme Court to hold that an adjacent landowner owes a duty of care to a motorist who unintentionally strays from the regularly traveled portion of the road if the landowner has consciously created a hazard in the right-of-way with knowledge of the danger it would present to such a motorist. The Supreme Court declined to do so and affirmed, holding that Defendants did not owe Plaintiff a duty of care with respect to their mailbox. View "Snay v. Burr" on Justia Law