Howard v. HCR Manorcare, Inc.
99 N.E.3d 429
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Decedent Donald Howard died after nursing‑home residency at Heartland of Springfield; plaintiff David Howard sued individually and as personal representative for wrongful death and survival claims against HCR ManorCare entities and the facility administrator.
- Procedural history: initial complaint (2014), amended complaints, discovery, mixed motions (motions to dismiss, summary judgment, motion for judgment on the pleadings); trial on damages only after defendants admitted liability for wrongful death at the start of the April 5, 2016 trial.
- Trial court granted judgment on the pleadings dismissing survival claims (Counts 1, 3, 4) as time‑barred medical claims under R.C. 2305.113; after defendants admitted liability, a jury awarded $1,100,000 in damages to wrongful‑death beneficiaries.
- Post‑trial, plaintiff sought prejudgment interest; trial court denied the request after a non‑oral hearing and refused plaintiff’s request for a continuance to conduct discovery related to the prejudgment interest motion.
- On appeal, HCR raised multiple challenges (judgment on the pleadings, jury form/interrogatories, counsel misconduct, jury instructions); plaintiff cross‑appealed the dismissal of survival claims and denial of prejudgment interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by denying HCR's motion for judgment on the pleadings attacking plaintiff's Civ.R. 10(D)(2) affidavit and thus impairing wrongful‑death claims | Howard: the affidavit defect (if any) could be cured and the affidavit requirement is not jurisdictional; HCR waived challenges by admitting liability | HCR: the 10(D)(2) affidavit was deficient (nurse lacked causation competence); some authorities treat affidavit requirement as jurisdictional so dismissal was proper | Court: Overruled HCR assignment — HCR admitted liability and waived the 10(D)(2) challenge; affidavit defects do not implicate subject‑matter jurisdiction and may be cured under the rule |
| Validity of jury interrogatories/verdict form and allocation among beneficiaries | Howard: trial court permissibly asked jurors to break down damages among beneficiaries; HCR waived objections by agreeing at charge conference | HCR: verdict form impermissibly had jury allocate amounts among non‑parties and split damages into components, invading probate court role | Held: HCR waived objections (agreed with court); jury awarded total to personal representative; breaking damages into elements and by beneficiary is permissible and not prejudicial |
| Whether counsel’s closing statements warranted new trial (use of term “killed”) | Howard: isolated misstatement immediately corrected; no prejudice; no curative instruction requested | HCR: counsel’s language was inflammatory and trial court should have cured or ordered new trial | Held: No abuse of discretion; statement was isolated, promptly corrected, HCR failed to request curative instruction and in any event invited/ opened the subject; no plain error |
| Whether trial court erred by refusing requested instruction on intervening/superseding cause or negligence/causation | Howard: causation not at issue because liability was admitted; large‑scale proximate‑cause instruction unnecessary | HCR: needed intervening/superseding cause instruction to limit damages to those proximately caused by defendants | Held: No error — causation was not in dispute after admission; requested intervening‑cause instruction was withdrawn by HCR during trial; court’s damage instructions were sufficient |
| Whether dismissal of survival claims (Counts 1,3,4) as "medical claims" under R.C. 2305.113 was proper on judgment on the pleadings | Howard: survival claims are corporate/negligence claims, not medical claims; corporate defendants (other than the licensed nursing home) are not statutorily enumerated medical providers | HCR: the survival claims arise from medical care/ treatment and thus fall within R.C. 2305.113’s one‑year statute | Held: Cross‑appeal sustained — on the pleadings corporate defendants were not statutorily enumerated medical providers and the survival counts, as pleaded, alleged non‑medical negligence; dismissal at pleading stage under R.C. 2305.113 was erroneous and remanded for further proceedings on survival claims |
| Whether trial court abused discretion denying plaintiff discovery/continuance on prejudgment interest hearing | Howard: Cotterman/Moskovitz require discovery in prejudgment interest proceedings; needed insurer/claims‑file discovery; denial prejudiced his motion | HCR: plaintiff delayed seeking discovery until the day before hearing; court may hold non‑oral hearing; no abuse of discretion | Held: Overruled cross‑assignment — trial court did not abuse discretion; plaintiff unreasonably delayed requesting discovery and court properly exercised discretion to proceed without oral evidentiary hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Fletcher v. Univ. Hosps. of Cleveland, 120 Ohio St.3d 167 (2008) (explaining Civ.R. 10(D)(2) affidavit‑of‑merit purpose and that affidavit establishes complaint adequacy)
- Hiatt v. South Health Facilities, Inc., 68 Ohio St.3d 236 (1994) (invalidating statute that made affidavit requirement a jurisdictional prerequisite)
- State ex rel. Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers v. Sheward, 86 Ohio St.3d 451 (1999) (Legislative attempt to make certificate‑of‑merit jurisdictional conflicted with Civil Rules)
- Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 (1997) (failure to timely object to jury instructions waives appellate review)
- Moskovitz v. Mt. Sinai Med. Ctr., 69 Ohio St.3d 638 (1994) (plaintiff bears burden to prove prejudgment interest; discovery of insurer/claims file may be necessary)
- Pruszynski v. Reeves, 117 Ohio St.3d 92 (2008) (trial court must set a date‑certain evidentiary hearing for prejudgment interest but has discretion as to nature of hearing)
- Bank of Am., N.A. v. Kuchta, 141 Ohio St.3d 75 (2014) (distinguishing subject‑matter jurisdiction from other jurisdictional issues; errors in exercise of jurisdiction make a judgment voidable rather than void)
- Browning v. Burt, 66 Ohio St.3d 544 (1993) (defining "medical diagnosis, care, or treatment" and cautioning against broad interpretation of "care")
- Hayes v. Oakridge Home, 122 Ohio St.3d 63 (2009) (party may waive certain procedural rights, like seeking outright dismissal under Civ.R. 10(D)(2), by arbitration agreement or other conduct)