Bath Manor Special Care Ctr. v. Obasogie
2021 Ohio 2227
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background
- Cynthia Obasogie (Decedent) died while a resident of Bath Manor Special Care Centre. Her son, Spencer Obasogie, filed suit as administrator of the estate asserting survivorship and wrongful-death claims based on alleged medical negligence.
- An earlier action was dismissed in part: the survivorship claim was dismissed as time-barred and Bath Manor successfully challenged the affidavit of merit on procedural grounds.
- Obasogie refiled pro se, again asserting survivorship and wrongful-death claims. Bath Manor moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing (1) the survivorship claim was time-barred and (2) Obasogie (a non‑attorney) unlawfully practiced law by filing a wrongful-death complaint on behalf of an estate that included his sister as a beneficiary.
- Obasogie retained counsel and sought leave to amend the refiled complaint to add counsel, but the trial court granted Bath Manor’s motions and denied leave to amend. The court concluded Obasogie engaged in the unauthorized practice of law and that the pro se wrongful-death complaint was a legal nullity.
- Obasogie appealed; the Ninth District affirmed. A concurring/dissenting judge would have allowed amendment to cure the defect in certain circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a non‑attorney personal representative may file a pro se wrongful‑death suit when the estate has additional beneficiaries | Obasogie: as personal representative he sued in that capacity (the nominal plaintiff); identity of beneficiaries is irrelevant to his authority to file | Bath Manor: a non‑attorney cannot represent the interests of multiple statutory beneficiaries; filing for others is unauthorized practice of law | Held: Non‑attorney personal representative who files on behalf of an estate that includes other beneficiaries engages in unauthorized practice of law; judgment on the pleadings proper |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying leave to amend to substitute counsel after the pro se filing | Obasogie: amendment should be allowed to cure the defect once counsel was retained; no prejudice to defendant | Bath Manor: the original pro se complaint was void ab initio under R.C. 4705.01, so there was nothing to amend | Held: Denial of leave to amend was not an abuse of discretion because the pro se wrongful‑death complaint was a legal nullity and cannot be amended |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Midwest Pride IV, Inc. v. Pontious, 75 Ohio St.3d 565 (1996) (standard for judgment on the pleadings)
- Toledo Bar Assn. v. Rust, 124 Ohio St.3d 305 (2010) (personal representative is nominal party in wrongful‑death action)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard)
- State v. Barnhart, 158 Ohio St.3d 1401 (2020) (per curiam practice allowing cure of unauthorized‑practice filings in certain appellate contexts)
- John D. Smith Co., L.P.A. v. Lipsky, 156 Ohio St.3d 1482 (2019) (per curiam allowance to cure unauthorized‑practice filings)
- State ex rel. Washington v. Neil, 153 Ohio St.3d 1454 (2018) (per curiam allowance to cure unauthorized‑practice filings)