Miller v. MetroHealth Med. Ctr.
2017 Ohio 653
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In June 2012 Hansford Miller underwent hernia repair by Dr. Paul Priebe at MetroHealth; an assisting physician (Dr. Liu) participated and Miller developed a postoperative bowel obstruction requiring a second surgery on June 16, 2012.
- Miller sued MetroHealth and Dr. Priebe in July 2015 for medical malpractice and for battery (lack of informed consent for the June 16 surgery and for Dr. Liu’s participation in the June 11 surgery).
- Procedural dispute arose over electronic filing: Miller filed a combined opposition and contra-motion but had e-filing problems; the trial court struck his filings and gave a one-day refiling deadline he missed, then granted summary judgment to defendants on the battery claim.
- Defendants later moved for summary judgment on the malpractice claims after plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Wingate, disavowed opinions on negligence (except retained opinion on lack of informed consent and the danger of organ strangulation), and defendants relied on signed consent forms.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to defendants on the malpractice claim; Miller appealed, raising three assignments of error challenging the strikes and both summary judgment rulings.
- The court of appeals reversed and remanded: it found the trial court abused its discretion by striking Miller’s filings given known e-filing problems and that genuine issues of material fact remained on the malpractice claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by striking Miller’s opposition/contra-motion and giving an unreasonable refile deadline | Miller argued e-filing failures prevented timely proper filing; he made repeated good-faith attempts and the court should have excised improper portions rather than strike all | Defendants relied on court’s docket-control authority and compliance with scheduling/filing rules | Court: Abuse of discretion — strike was unreasonable given known e-filing problems; first assignment of error sustained |
| Whether there was a triable issue on the battery (lack of consent) claim | Miller claimed he did not consent to Dr. Liu’s role or to Dr. Priebe performing the June 16 surgery | Defendants pointed to signed consent forms showing consent and denied liability | Court: Issue rendered moot by disposition of first assignment (remanded for further proceedings) |
| Whether summary judgment on medical malpractice was appropriate | Miller argued Dr. Wingate’s retained opinions (including failure to obtain informed consent and that organ strangulation was a risk) and Dr. Priebe’s testimony created material factual disputes | Defendants argued plaintiff’s expert would not testify to standard-of-care negligence (except informed consent), and consent forms and record disproved negligence/causation | Court: Reversed — genuine issue of material fact exists regarding malpractice; third assignment of error sustained |
Key Cases Cited
- Nakoff v. Fairview Gen. Hosp., 75 Ohio St.3d 254 (1996) (trial courts have docket-management discretion)
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (1996) (de novo standard for appellate review of summary judgment)
- Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, 82 Ohio St.3d 367 (1998) (summary judgment standard under Civ.R. 56 explained)
- Bruni v. Tatsumi, 46 Ohio St.2d 127 (1976) (elements of medical malpractice and need for expert proof of standard of care)
- Murphy v. Reynoldsburg, 65 Ohio St.3d 356 (1992) (doubts on summary judgment resolved in favor of nonmoving party)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (1996) (burden of moving party in Civ.R. 56 summary judgment practice)
- Horton v. Harwick Chem. Corp., 73 Ohio St.3d 679 (1995) (third-prong summary judgment formulation cited)