2021 Ohio 220
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Plaintiffs (Bonnie and Grant Miller) refiled a medical-malpractice suit on March 14, 2018; trial was scheduled for March 11, 2020.
- Plaintiffs moved to continue and to reopen discovery in February 2020; that motion was denied.
- On March 10, 2020 plaintiffs filed an "Emergency Motion for Continuance" citing COVID-19, Bonnie Miller's age and underlying health conditions (71 years old with multiple myeloma), and possible exposure by opposing counsel.
- The trial proceeded beginning March 11, 2020; the jury returned a unanimous verdict for defendant on March 17, 2020; final judgment entered March 18, 2020.
- Plaintiffs did not provide a trial transcript or an App.R. 9(C) statement on appeal; the appellate court therefore presumes regularity of the proceedings and limits review to questions of law.
- The sole appellate claim: the trial court abused its discretion by denying the continuance in light of COVID-19 and related safety concerns.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of the March 10, 2020 continuance was an abuse of discretion given COVID-19 risks | Flowers should have continued trial to protect Mrs. Miller from infection and because of potential counsel exposure | Trial court reasonably denied a last-minute continuance; parties and witnesses were prepared and safety measures were in place | Denial was not an abuse of discretion; judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Rose Chevrolet, Inc. v. Adams, 36 Ohio St.3d 17 (1988) (appellant bears burden to secure trial transcript for appellate review)
- State v. Render, 43 Ohio St.2d 17 (1975) (when transcript necessary to decide issues, absence requires affirmance or dismissal)
- State v. Unger, 67 Ohio St.2d 65 (1981) (factors to consider in ruling on continuance motions)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse-of-discretion standard explained)