Heard v. Dayton View Commons Homes, 106 N.E.3d 327

Plaintiff James Heard (pro se) sued landlord Dayton View after slipping at his apartment threshold on Nov. 24, 2014, alleging the fall caused neck, back, and head injuries and ultimately cervical surgery; he sought $5 million.
Complaint contained no medical records or expert opinions tying the fall to the cervical surgery; attachments were non-medical or ambiguous.
Defendant produced Heard’s deposition and medical-history evidence showing long-standing back and neck problems, doctors’ prior recommendations for decompression surgery (discussed as early as 2013), and MRI changes predating the fall.
Heard’s deposition included inconsistent statements: he said he had no neck problems until after the fall but also acknowledged prior neck pain and prior discussions about possible future surgery.
Defendant moved for summary judgment arguing (1) Heard’s medical records showed preexisting conditions and (2) Heard offered no expert testimony linking the fall to the later surgery; Heard did not oppose the motion with medical/expert evidence.
The trial court granted summary judgment for defendant on proximate causation grounds; the appellate court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether proximate causation between the fall and Heard’s cervical surgery was established	Heard contended his neck problems began after the fall and caused the need for surgery	Dayton View relied on medical records and deposition showing preexisting neck/spine degeneration and absence of expert causation evidence	Court held Heard failed to raise a genuine issue: lay opinion and records showed preexisting condition; expert proof was required to link fall to surgery, so summary judgment proper
Whether the moving party needed to negate plaintiff’s claim to obtain summary judgment	Heard argued against the grant of summary judgment	Dayton View argued nonexistence of causal link based on evidentiary material and plaintiff’s lack of expert support	Court noted the movant must first show no genuine issue exists (it did via evidentiary materials); once met, plaintiff had burden to produce specific contrary evidence (which he did not).

Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, 82 Ohio St.3d 367 (summary judgment standard and Civ.R. 56 principles)
Mitseff v. Wheeler, 38 Ohio St.3d 112 (movant's initial burden on summary judgment)
Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (nonmoving party's burden to produce specific evidentiary materials)
Wing v. Anchor Media, Ltd., 59 Ohio St.3d 108 (discussion of burdens in summary judgment context)
Strother v. Hutchinson, 67 Ohio St.2d 282 (elements of negligence: duty, breach, proximate cause)