Longbottom v. Mercy Hospital Clermont
137 Ohio St. 3d 103
Ohio2013Background
- Am. Sub.H.B. No. 212 amended R.C. 1343.03(C) on June 2, 2004 to bar prejudgment interest on future damages but preserve right to prejudgment interest on other damages.
- The question certified by the appellate court asked whether the 2004 amendment applies retroactively to pre-amendment accruals.
- Kyle Smith was injured March 22, 2002; parents sued in 2003 and dismissed, then refiled March 3, 2008.
- The trial court awarded prejudgment interest including on future damages, applying pre-amendment law, and the court of appeals affirmed with some adjustments.
- The Ohio Supreme Court held the 2004 amendments to R.C. 1343.03(C) apply to causes of action accruing before but filed on or after June 2, 2004, and that the statute is prospective; it reversed the appellate judgment and remanded for proceedings.
- Dissent argued the retroactive impact on a pre-existing right to prejudgment interest on future damages was unconstitutional retroactivity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2004 amendment to R.C. 1343.03(C) applies to actions accruing before its effective date. | Longbottom/Smith: no retroactive application; creates burdens on preexisting rights. | Huber: amendment applies to all actions pending on/after June 2, 2004. | Yes; prospective application to filings on/after June 2, 2004. |
| Whether the Retroactivity Clause forbids applying the amendment to preexisting rights. | Dissent: retroactive imposition of burdens on preexisting rights; unconstitutional. | Majority: remedy changes are permissible if not eliminating rights; prospective only. | Statute applies prospectively; retroactive invalidity not established for this case. |
| Does the amendment preclude prejudgment interest on future damages in this case given refiling after voluntary dismissal? | Remains entitled to preexisting substantive right; dismissal reset accrual. | Amendment governs new filings after enactment; not retroactive. | Amendment applies to refiling; prejudgment interest on future damages limited. |
Key Cases Cited
- Huffman v. Hair Surgeon, Inc., 19 Ohio St.3d 83 (Ohio St.3d 1985) (originally held former §1343.03(C) created a new substantive benefit; pre-enactment interest not allowed; but post-enactment accrual allowed)
- Maynard v. Eaton Corp., 119 Ohio St.3d 443 (Ohio 2008) (applied amended rate to pending cases on appeal; held amendment applies to cases pending on effective date)
- Smith v. Smith, 109 Ohio St.3d 285 (Ohio 2006) (Retroactivity clause interpretation guiding prospective application)
- Bielat v. Bielat, 87 Ohio St.3d 350 (Ohio 1999) (retroactivity analysis: express intent and substantive vs remedial)
- Tobacco Use Prevention & Control Found. Bd. of Trustees v. Boyce, 127 Ohio St.3d 511 (Ohio 2010) (retrospective limits and methods of assessing rights)
- Van Fossen v. Babcock & Wilcox Co., 36 Ohio St.3d 100 (Ohio 1988) (test for vesting rights and retroactivity)
- Morgan v. W. Elec. Co., Inc., 69 Ohio St.2d 278 (Ohio 1982) (legislature controls remedies; no vested right in forms of justice)