Johnson v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., Co.
2024 Ohio 3187
Ohio Ct. App.2024Background
- Johnson was injured in a hit-and-run automobile accident and sought uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits from State Farm, who allegedly undervalued his claim.
- Johnson filed a lawsuit against State Farm for coverage and bad faith.
- During litigation, State Farm moved for an independent medical examination (IME) of Johnson under Civ.R. 35(A), after the discovery deadline.
- The trial court granted State Farm’s motion for an IME but did not define the examination’s scope and denied Johnson's request to obtain a rebuttal expert.
- Johnson appealed, challenging the trial court’s order on grounds including the timeliness of the IME motion, the lack of scope in the IME order, and the denial of an opportunity to submit rebuttal experts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Good cause and condition in IME order | No good cause or condition in controversy for IME as required by Civ.R. 35(A). | Plaintiff placed injury in controversy; medical exam justified. | Overruled: Injury is in controversy. |
| 2. Timeliness of IME motion post-discovery cutoff | IME request was untimely and court did not consider excusable neglect under Civ.R. 6(B). | Motion was timely; no missed deadlines established. | Overruled: No excusable neglect; court has discretion. |
| 3. Scope of IME defined in court order | Trial court failed to define scope/conditions of the IME as required by Civ.R. 35(A). | IME details (time/place) provided, but scope unclear. | Sustained: Order vacated, remanded to define scope. |
| 4. Opportunity for rebuttal expert after IME | Court erred by denying chance to submit rebuttal experts post-IME. | Johnson did not file a proper motion requesting this relief. | Overruled: No motion filed, issue is premature. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kinsey v. Erie Ins. Grp., 159 Ohio App.3d 528 (10th Dist. 2004) (IME orders may be final and appealable under some circumstances)
- Stratman v. Sutantio, 168 Ohio App.3d 245 (10th Dist. 2006) (IME order may risk unjust privacy invasion and be a provisional remedy)
- State v. Muncie, 91 Ohio St.3d 440 (Ohio 2001) (three-part test for appealable provisional remedies)
- Nickel v. Carter, 104 Ohio St.3d 542 (Ohio 2004) (IME order outside a special proceeding not final)
- Myers v. Toledo, 110 Ohio St.3d 218 (Ohio 2006) (IME orders generally not final, appealable orders)