Family Med. of Stark Cty., Inc. v. Smart
2017 Ohio 5866
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Family Medicine of Stark County sued Moresetta and William Smart for defamation after Moresetta filed multiple complaints and a federal suit alleging improper medical treatment and other misconduct; none of those proceedings succeeded.
- Appellant amended its complaint twice and alleged defamation, claims under R.C. 2307.011 definitions, intentional torts to support punitive damages and attorney fees, and spousal liability for William under R.C. 3103.03.
- At bench trial, witnesses established Moresetta filed complaints with police, the Massillon prosecutor, the Ohio Civil Rights Commission, the State Medical Board, the Ohio Attorney General, Aultcare, and federal court; trial testimony lacked first‑hand proof of defamatory statements beyond filings to agencies/courts.
- The magistrate found many of Moresetta’s statements were reasonably related to official proceedings and thus protected by absolute privilege or qualified privilege; the magistrate entered judgment for appellees.
- Appellant failed to file timely objections to the magistrate’s decision; the trial court confirmed the magistrate’s decision and denied appellant’s late-extension motion as the court had entered final judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether absolute privilege shields statements made in judicial or investigatory proceedings | Privilege does not apply because appellees acted with illegal ulterior motives and statements were not reasonably related to proceedings | Statements to courts, prosecutors, police, and administrative agencies were reasonably related to attempts to initiate investigations or prosecutions and thus absolutely privileged | Court: Absolute privilege applies where statements reasonably relate to the proceeding; no plain error in magistrate’s finding of privilege |
| Whether evidence of bad faith/ulterior motive defeats absolute immunity | Bad faith/actual malice removes immunity per appellant’s reading of Hecht | Hecht does not create an exception for ulterior motives; privilege applies irrespective of bad faith | Court: Hecht does not abrogate absolute immunity for statements reasonably related to proceedings; bad faith does not remove privilege |
| Spousal liability under R.C. 3103.03 for another spouse’s tortious acts | William should be jointly liable for wife’s actions under R.C. 3103.03 | R.C. 3103.03 limits spouse liability to “necessaries” and requires inability to pay by the spouse who incurred the debt; it does not impose general vicarious tort liability | Court: No plain error in reading sections in pari materia; appellant presented no evidence spouse was unable to pay and statute doesn’t impose broad spousal tort liability |
| Entitlement to attorney fees and proof required | Appellant entitled to fees because appellees acted with actual malice; denial based solely on lack of expert on reasonableness | Defendants: appellant did not prevail on defamation and fees discretionary; magistrate relied on multiple facts including invoices and lack of prevailing status | Court: Fees discretionary; appellant was not prevailing party on defamation so denial affirmed; lack of expert was not sole reason for denial |
Key Cases Cited
- Hecht v. Levin, 66 Ohio St.3d 458 (Ohio 1993) (absolute privilege protects statements reasonably related to judicial proceedings)
- M.J. DiCorpo, Inc. v. Sweeney, 69 Ohio St.3d 497 (Ohio 1995) (statements to police or prosecutors about possible crimes are part of judicial proceeding and may receive absolute privilege)
- Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 (Ohio 1997) (plain‑error and relief from procedural defaults in civil appeals are narrowly applied)
- Perrysburg Twp. v. Rossford Arena Amphitheater Auth., 175 Ohio St.3d 549 (Ohio 2008) (statutory interpretation: related sections read in pari materia)