2024 Ohio 1385
Ohio Ct. App.2024Background
- Paul Manter, an elderly man with multiple health conditions, moved into Northgate Park, an assisted living facility, and signed a Residence and Services Agreement (RSA).
- Paul’s care plan was modified after concerns about his hygiene, requiring stand-by or hands-on assistance with bathing 2-3 times a week.
- Paul suffered a fall, was hospitalized, and eventually had his left leg amputated due to an ulcer that was discovered after the fall.
- Paul sued Northgate under various theories: negligence, breach of contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), unjust enrichment, spoliation, and violations of residents’ rights under Ohio law.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Northgate on all claims; Paul appealed.
- The appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part, remanding for further proceedings on certain claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Genuine issues of material fact exist for trial | Material facts regarding wound size/timeline are disputed | Disputed facts are immaterial to outcome | Overruled: Disputes not material |
| Northgate’s classification under state law | Northgate is a home under R.C. 3721, entitling Paul to statutory rights | Northgate is a residential facility under R.C. 5119/.5123, not a home | Sustained: Trial court erred in legal classification |
| Existence of a non-contractual duty for negligence | Statutory rights supply independent duty | No independent duty beyond contract; negligence claim subsumed | Sustained: Statutory rights may be an independent duty |
| Breach of contract as source for tort duty | Breach of RSA supports negligence claim | Breach of contract cannot support tort | Overruled: No tort claim on contract breach alone |
| Genuine issues of fact for breach of contract | Factual disputes about care and assistance provided | Duties under RSA fulfilled; plaintiff’s testimony unreliable | Sustained: Genuine issues exist for trial |
| IIED claim viability | Conduct was extreme/outageous | Conduct did not meet threshold for IIED | Overruled: Conduct not extreme or outrageous |
Key Cases Cited
- Al Neyer, LLC v. Westfield Ins. Co., 163 N.E.3d 106 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020) (standard for summary judgment review de novo)
- Evans Landscaping, Inc. v. Stenger, 969 N.E.2d 1264 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011) (tort claims can coexist with contract claims when there is an independent duty)
- Ma v. Cincinnati Children’s Hosp. Med. Ctr., 216 N.E.3d 1 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023) (elements of breach of contract under Ohio law)
- FAP Properties XL, LLC v. Griffin, 2022-Ohio-3410 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022) (standard for IIED claim under Ohio law)