Lerner v. Broadview NH, L.L.C.
2017 Ohio 8001
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Steven D. Lerner, executor of Irene Lerner’s estate, sued Broadview NH, LLC after Irene’s July–August 2014 stay at Broadview and her August 7, 2014 death; amended complaint (Feb. 9, 2016) alleged negligence and violations of the Nursing Home Patients’ Bill of Rights (R.C. 3721.13).
- Allegations included failure to administer pain medication, failures concerning nasal cannula and bedsores, inadequate personal care, poor sanitation, communication failures with therapy and family, inadequate monitoring, and failure to provide information to family.
- Broadview moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), arguing (1) claims are "medical claims" subject to the one-year statute of limitations (R.C. 2305.113) and therefore time-barred, and (2) plaintiff failed to file the Civ.R. 10(D)(2) affidavit of merit required for medical claims.
- The trial court granted dismissal. Lerner appealed, arguing the claims were not medical claims, the court failed to construe inferences for the nonmoving party, and dismissal was improper without an affidavit of merit.
- The appellate court (majority) evaluated whether individual alleged theories arose from medical diagnosis, care, or treatment and therefore were medical claims, applying standards that look to whether the act/omission was part of medical treatment, ordered by a medical professional, or required medical expertise.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lerner's claims are "medical claims" under R.C. 2305.113 and thus subject to a one-year statute of limitations | Lerner: claims are non-medical general-care claims and not subject to one-year limitation | Broadview: claims arise from medical diagnosis/care/treatment and therefore are medical claims subject to one-year bar | Court: some theories (failure to treat bedsores; failure to keep nasal cannula in place; failure to deliver physician-ordered pain medication) are medical claims and time-barred; other theories lack sufficient factual detail to be characterized as medical claims at dismissal stage; partial reversal/remand |
| Whether the complaint was properly dismissed under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) (construing facts and inferences) | Lerner: trial court failed to construe allegations and reasonable inferences in his favor | Broadview: allegations show claims arise from medical care so dismissal appropriate | Court: must accept complaint allegations and reasonable inferences for nonmoving party; trial court erred to the extent it dismissed theories lacking sufficient factual detail; therefore dismissal was partly improper |
| Whether dismissal was improper because plaintiff could possibly prove a set of facts supporting recovery | Lerner: complaint plausibly pleads non-medical theories that could survive dismissal | Broadview: complaint conclusively shows medical claims so no set of facts would avoid statute bar | Court: because some theories were not conclusively medical on the face of the complaint, dismissal was inappropriate as to those claims; partial reversal |
| Whether Civ.R. 10(D)(2) affidavit of merit was required and failure to file mandates dismissal | Lerner: no affidavit required because claims are non-medical; thus dismissal for lack of affidavit was improper | Broadview: affidavit required for medical claims; failure to file necessitates dismissal | Court: affidavit requirement applies to those claims that are medical claims; dismissal for lack of affidavit was proper as to the three medical theories but improper as to other theories not shown to be medical claims on the complaint’s face |
Key Cases Cited
- Volbers-Klarich v. Middletown Mgt., Inc., 125 Ohio St.3d 494 (2010) (standard for Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motions; pleadings construed in plaintiff’s favor)
- LeRoy v. Allen, Yurasek & Merklin, 114 Ohio St.3d 323 (2007) (rule that courts must make all reasonable inferences for nonmoving party on motion to dismiss)
- Cincinnati v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 95 Ohio St.3d 416 (2002) (plaintiff survives dismissal if any set of facts consistent with complaint permits recovery)
- Ohio Bur. of Workers’ Comp. v. McKinley, 130 Ohio St.3d 156 (2011) (de novo review of Civ.R. 12(B)(6) dismissals and limitations defenses)
- Estate of Stevic v. Bio-Medical Application of Ohio, Inc., 121 Ohio St.3d 488 (2009) (two-prong test for a "medical claim": defendant is statutory medical provider and claim arises out of medical diagnosis/care/treatment)
- Browning v. Burt, 66 Ohio St.3d 544 (1993) (definitions of "diagnosis," "treatment," and "care" for statute’s scope)
- Rome v. Flower Memorial Hosp., 70 Ohio St.3d 14 (1994) (negligence by staff ancillary to treatment can be a medical claim when acts are inherently part of medical care)
- Jefferson v. Bunting, 140 Ohio St.3d 62 (2014) (courts cannot rely on evidence outside the complaint when deciding a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion)
- Fletcher v. University Hospitals, 120 Ohio St.3d 167 (2008) (failure to attach required affidavit of merit to complaint invoking mandatory dismissal)