Brittingham v. Gen. Motors Corp.
2011 Ohio 6488
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Plaintiffs-appellants Brittingham filed an appeal from a February 9, 2011 trial court order granting summary judgment on Stull’s medical-malpractice claims and partially denying cross-motions; GM moved for summary judgment and plaintiffs cross-moved for partial summary judgment.
- Pre-employment physical of Brittingham at GM Moraine plant on Aug. 1, 1997 included pulmonary tests showing 57% and 55% predicted; Stull approved employment despite abnormal results; Brittingham worked 1997–1999; diagnosed Alpha-1 Antitrypsin Deficiency in 1999.
- Plaintiffs assert negligence and fraud against Stull based on failure to explain test significance, refer for follow-up, and disapprove employment; they also pursue vicarious liability/GM for Stull’s conduct.
- Trial court held Stull’s negligence and fraud were medical claims governed by one-year statute; claims against GM for vicarious liability failed; loss-of-consortium claims governed by RC 2305.99.
- Brittingham asserted direct/independent tort duties by GM to disclose abnormal results and refer; trial court rejected these duties as insufficient to create a non-medical claim; appeal challenges that ruling.
- The court ultimately affirmed, holding the negligence and fraud claims against Stull were medical claims subject to the one-year statute and that GM lacked the duties alleged; fourth assignment of error regarding vicarious liability also overruled.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the negligence and fraud claims against Stull medical claims? | Stull’s duties were ordinary negligence, not medical malpractice. | Claims arise from medical evaluation and treatment; subject to one-year limit. | Yes, medical claims; barred by one-year statute. |
| Did GM owe direct or independent duties to Brittingham? | GM had a duty to explain test results, refer for follow-up, and disapprove employment. | No duty under Ohio law; employer actions not medical claims. | No such independent duty found. |
| Does the negligent/fraudulent conduct by GM amount to direct liability separate from Stull? | GM could be liable for distinct torts. | No direct tort duty; no actionable independent conduct. | Rejected; no direct tort liability established. |
| Is GM vicariously liable for Stull’s acts barred by statute? | GM could be vicariously liable regardless of medical claim timing. | Vicarious liability barred if Stull’s claim barred. | Overruled; vicarious liability cannot survive medical-claim bar. |
Key Cases Cited
- Murphy v. City of Reynoldsburg, 65 Ohio St.3d 356 (Ohio 1992) (mandatory appellate review requirements for summary judgment)
- Third National Bank & Trust Co. v. Diamond Savings & Loan Co., 43 Ohio App.3d 140 (Ohio App.1989) (duty factors for imposing legal duty; foreseeability emphasis)
- Coffee v. McDonnell-Douglas Corp., 8 Cal.3d 551 (Cal.1972) (duty to discover disease depends on circumstance and purpose of exam)
- Meinze v. Holmes, 40 Ohio App.3d 143 (Ohio App.1987) (duty to disclose medical information by insurer/physician context)
- Eaton v. Continental General, 147 F.Supp.2d 829 (N.D. Ohio 2001) (employer-physician/diagnostic duty in insurance context; relationship as commercial)
- Union Carbide & Carbon Corp. v. Stapleton, 237 F.2d 229 (6th Cir.1956) (employer’s duty to warn employee of health condition from voluntary exam)
- Wuerth, 122 Ohio St.3d 594 (Ohio 2009) (vicarious liability standards for principle/agent)