Lang v. Beachwood Pointe Care Ctr.
90 N.E.3d 102
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Mary Stevens, an infirm nursing-home resident, fell from her wheelchair after her husband towed her; she later developed severe pressure ulcers and died; plaintiff (Daniel Lang, estate representative) sued Beachwood Pointe for negligence, survivorship, wrongful death, and sought punitive damages.
- Jury awarded $440,000 compensatory damages; in a bifurcated punitive phase the jury awarded $560,000 punitive damages; trial court also awarded $400,000 attorney fees and $31,010.64 in "litigation expenses."
- Nursing Home moved for directed verdict/JNOV on punitive damages and for new trial; trial court denied those motions; Nursing Home appealed.
- The appellate majority concluded plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence of actual malice or conscious disregard required for punitive damages, vacated punitive award and the related attorney-fee and expense awards, and remanded for taxable costs under Civ.R. 54(D).
- The court affirmed trial-court rulings on evidentiary challenges and jury instruction regarding medical bills; one judge dissented, arguing punitive damages were supportable via a ratification theory.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for punitive damages (actual malice) | Malice shown by conscious disregard: staff knew towing was unsafe, failed to change care after fall, and failed to properly monitor/treat pressure ulcers; expert testimony supported willful/wanton conduct | Evidence at most supports negligence; staff intervened at times, did not knowingly permit or ratify malicious conduct; plaintiff's experts offered conclusory opinions on malice | Vacated punitive-damages award: directed-verdict standard met because evidence of malice was legally insufficient to send punitive issue to jury |
| Attorney fees and "litigation expenses" awarded post-punitive verdict | Fees/expenses recoverable as sanction/bad-faith corollary to punitive award | Under American Rule, fees and litigation expenses require statutory/contractual basis or bad-faith conduct; here tied to vacated punitive award | Vacated $400,000 attorney-fee and $31,010.64 litigation-expense awards; no exception to American Rule shown |
| Recoverable costs vs. litigation expenses (Civ.R. 54(D)) | Plaintiff sought broad reimbursement including expert fees, document review, depo prep, etc. | Many claimed items are litigation expenses (non-taxable) rather than taxable costs; only costs authorized by law under Civ.R.54(D) are recoverable | Remanded: trial court must compute awardable costs consistent with Civ.R.54(D) and applicable law; non-taxable litigation expenses vacated |
| Admission of federal regs, other residents' records, and medical-bill instruction | Admission showed standard/practice and documentation habits; redactions authorized; jury may consider billed v. paid amounts but not third-party payments | Evidence possibly prejudicial or HIPAA-protected; payments should be excluded from jury consideration | Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion in admitting regs and other TARs; jury instruction correctly allowed consideration of billed amount and directed jurors to disregard third-party payments per Robinson and Jaques precedents |
Key Cases Cited
- Preston v. Murty, 32 Ohio St.3d 334 (Ohio 1987) (defines actual malice as hatred/ill will or conscious disregard with great probability of substantial harm and requires trial-court review before submitting punitive issue to jury)
- Zoppo v. Homestead Ins. Co., 71 Ohio St.3d 552 (Ohio 1994) (jury decides amount of punitive damages where issue submitted)
- Moskovitz v. Mt. Sinai Med. Ctr., 69 Ohio St.3d 638 (Ohio 1994) (punitive damages issues should be submitted when sufficient evidence supports inference of malice)
- Cabe v. Lunich, 70 Ohio St.3d 598 (Ohio 1994) (punitive damages require more than mere negligence)
- Calmes v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 61 Ohio St.3d 470 (Ohio 1991) (punitive damages punish a mental state so callous as to be intolerable)
- Motorists Mut. Ins. Co. v. Said, 63 Ohio St.3d 690 (Ohio 1992) (mere knowledge of possibility of harm does not establish malice)
- Robinson v. Bates, 112 Ohio St.3d 17 (Ohio 2006) (both original medical bill and amount accepted as payment may be admitted; jury may decide reasonable value)
- Jaques v. Manton, 125 Ohio St.3d 342 (Ohio 2010) (evidence of collateral-source subrogation is inadmissible when determining reasonable value of medical care)