Kinderdine v. Mahoning Cty. Bd. of Dev. Disabilities
2016 Ohio 5480
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Plaintiffs Tracy Kinderdine et al. filed a motion for reconsideration and for en banc reconsideration of this court's earlier decision in Kinderdine v. Mahoning County Educational Service Center.
- Plaintiffs argued the panel failed to consider favorable "startling testimony" omitted from the opinion and contended the panel applied a heightened causation standard contrary to earlier district decisions.
- Defendants (Mahoning County Board of Developmental Disabilities / MCBDD and MCESC) maintained the panel fully considered the trial record and that no intra-district conflict on a dispositive issue existed.
- The panel reviewed whether the motion identified an obvious error or raised an unconsidered issue and whether en banc review was warranted under App.R. 26(A)(2).
- The court concluded the motion merely expressed disagreement with the panel’s format and conclusions, not an obvious error, and found no dispositive intra-district conflict requiring en banc review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the panel overlooked material favorable testimony justifying reconsideration | Kinderdine: court omitted "startling testimony" favorable to plaintiffs | Defendants: panel considered the full trial record; omission was not error | Denied — plaintiffs pointed to disagreement with opinion format, not an obvious error |
| Whether the panel applied an improper / heightened causation standard | Kinderdine: panel deviated from Roberts and DeMartino on causation analysis | Defendants: no intra-district conflict; panel's analysis correct | Denied — no dispositive conflict shown; causation issue not dispositive here |
| Whether en banc reconsideration is warranted under App.R. 26(A)(2) | Kinderdine: asked en banc review to resolve alleged intra-district conflict | Defendants: asserted no conflict on dispositive issue exists | Denied — plaintiffs failed to identify a conflict on a dispositive issue |
| Whether reconsideration is an appropriate vehicle to reargue the appeal | Kinderdine: sought reconsideration based on disagreement with reasoning/omission | Defendants: reconsideration cannot be used to relitigate merits or raise new issues | Denied — reconsideration is not for reargument or new issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Columbus v. Hodge, 37 Ohio App.3d 68 (1987) (standard for granting a motion for reconsideration: obvious error or unconsidered issue)
- Roberts v. Switzerland of Ohio Local School Dist., 7 N.E.3d 526 (2014) (prior 7th Dist. decision cited by plaintiffs regarding causation analysis)