Craig v. Reynolds
2014 Ohio 3254
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Craig refiled a 2007 medical-malpractice suit in Oct. 2012 against Dr. Vernon Reynolds; a prior suit had been voluntarily dismissed in Oct. 2011.
- Craig first attempted service by certified mail to Reynolds' home address; the certified envelope was returned to the clerk marked “unclaimed.”
- Craig then asked the clerk to send process by ordinary U.S. mail to an address at Knox Community Hospital (the hospital), where Reynolds had previously been served in the original suit and where the State Medical Board listed his professional address.
- Reynolds moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B) and Civ.R. 3(A), arguing Civ.R. 4.6(D) required ordinary-mail follow-up to the same address from which the certified mail was returned unclaimed; because service was not properly completed within one year, Craig’s refiling never commenced.
- The trial court granted dismissal for insufficient service; Craig appealed, arguing Civ.R. 4.6(D) does not mandate that ordinary mail be sent to the same address as the unclaimed certified-mail attempt and that service to the hospital was reasonably calculated to provide notice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Civ.R. 4.6(D) requires the clerk’s ordinary-mail follow-up to be sent to the same address where certified mail was returned “unclaimed” | Craig: Rule text does not explicitly require the same-address follow-up; sending ordinary mail to hospital was reasonably calculated to notify Reynolds | Reynolds: After an unclaimed certified-mail return, Civ.R. 4.6(D) requires ordinary mail to be sent to the same address attempted by certified mail | Court: Civ.R. 4.6(D), read with Civ.R. 4.1 and guided by Thompkins and precedent, requires ordinary-mail follow-up to be sent to the same address as the unclaimed certified-mail attempt; service here was improper |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Thompkins, 115 Ohio St.3d 409 (Ohio 2007) (distinguishes “Attempted Not Known” from “Unclaimed” and holds an unclaimed certified-mail return supports ordinary-mail follow-up to the same address as reasonably calculated notice)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (standard for abuse of discretion review)
- Bell v. Midwestern Educational Servs., Inc., 89 Ohio App.3d 193 (Ohio Ct. App.) (a defendant’s actual knowledge of litigation does not cure defective service)