Armatas v. Cleveland Clinic Found.
2016 Ohio 7315
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- In December 2014 Steven Armatas, acting as his incapacitated father’s agent under power of attorney, submitted records to Cleveland Clinic’s MyConsult (an online second-opinion service) via a third party (Health Advocate); the father died December 31, 2014. MyConsult declined to issue an opinion after the death; Health Advocate refunded fees and Cleveland Clinic did not bill Armatas.
- Armatas sued Cleveland Clinic Foundation (CCF) and Dr. C. Martin Harris (alleging Harris supervised MyConsult) asserting breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, negligent/intentional misrepresentation, negligence, and related claims. Defendants answered and raised, among other defenses, that Armatas was not the real party in interest.
- Armatas moved for sanctions (Civ.R. 11 and R.C. 2323.51) against defense counsel for allegedly boilerplate, misleading pleadings; the trial court denied sanctions.
- Dr. Harris moved for summary judgment supported by affidavits stating he did not supervise MyConsult during the relevant period; the court granted his reconsidered summary-judgment motion.
- CCF moved for summary judgment asserting Armatas lacked standing/was not the real party in interest because he acted solely as agent for his now-deceased father; the trial court granted judgment for CCF.
- Armatas appealed; the appellate court affirmed denial of sanctions and the grants of summary judgment for Harris and CCF.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sanctions (Civ.R. 11 / R.C. 2323.51) were warranted for defense counsel’s pleadings | Armatas: defense answers were boilerplate, made in bad faith and frivolous | Defendants: answers were proper early-stage denials/affirmative defenses under Civ.R. 8; no willful misconduct or frivolousness | Denied — trial court did not abuse discretion; pleadings appropriate at early stage, no evidence of willful or frivolous conduct |
| Whether Dr. Harris is individually liable / whether summary judgment should be denied because genuine factual dispute exists about his supervisory role | Armatas: Harris supervised/directed MyConsult and thus can be held liable (including vicariously) | Harris: affidavits state he did not supervise MyConsult during the relevant period; no evidence of personal involvement or authorization of torts | Denied — summary judgment for Harris affirmed; Armatas failed to provide proper Civ.R. 56 evidence controverting Harris’s affidavits |
| Whether Harris is vicariously liable as an officer/executive of CCF | Armatas: Harris’s executive role makes him vicariously liable for MyConsult actions | Harris: no evidence he authorized, directed, or participated in any alleged torts during relevant period | Denied — no evidence of Harris’s personal authorization/participation; no vicarious liability established |
| Whether Armatas has standing / is the real party in interest to sue CCF | Armatas: signed MyConsult forms as his father’s agent and brought suit on father’s behalf | CCF: Armatas acted solely as agent via power of attorney and is not the real party in interest; the estate (executor/administrator) must bring claims | Denied — summary judgment for CCF affirmed; Armatas lacked standing as claims belong to the deceased father’s estate |
Key Cases Cited
- Hounshell v. American States Ins. Co., 67 Ohio St.2d 427 (Ohio 1981) (summary-judgment standard and avoiding judgment where material facts genuinely disputed)
- Smiddy v. The Wedding Party, Inc., 30 Ohio St.3d 35 (Ohio 1987) (appellate review of summary judgment applies same standard as trial court)
- Doe v. Shaffer, 90 Ohio St.3d 388 (Ohio 2000) (de novo review of summary judgment)
- Drescher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (Ohio 1996) (movant’s initial burden on summary judgment and shifting burden to nonmovant)
- Shealy v. Campbell, 20 Ohio St.3d 23 (Ohio 1985) (definition of real party in interest)
- State ex rel. Tubbs Jones v. Suster, 84 Ohio St.3d 70 (Ohio 1998) (standing vs. subject-matter jurisdiction distinction)
- Stone v. House of Day Funeral Serv., Inc., 140 Ohio App.3d 713 (Ohio App. 2000) (Civ.R. 11 employs a subjective bad-faith standard)
- Wiltberger v. Davis, 110 Ohio App.3d 46 (Ohio App. 1996) (R.C. 2323.51 review standards vary; factual findings afforded deference)