2023 Ohio 3045
Ohio Ct. App.2023Background
- In November 2019 Daniel Myers visited a University Hospitals urgent care, paid a co-pay, but subsequent billing statements did not reflect that payment and he was rebilled.
- Myers paid some bills; a remaining $55.38 balance led University Hospitals to refer the account to collections. UH later discovered a billing error and issued a refund.
- Myers sued alleging fraud, unauthorized disclosure of confidential medical information, violations of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (CSPA), and violations of the Summit County Consumer Protection Ordinance; he later abandoned the disclosure claim.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for University Hospitals, concluding the transaction was physician–patient (so CSPA and the County Ordinance did not apply) and, alternatively, that any consumer claims were barred by a bona fide error defense; the court also discounted Myers’s affidavit as not of evidentiary quality.
- The Ninth District Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding the trial court misapplied the summary-judgment standard (improperly weighed evidence and discounted a properly framed affidavit) and that material factual issues remained about whether a consumer transaction under the CSPA existed; one of Myers’s assignments was held premature.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the CSPA and County Ordinance apply (i.e., whether the billing was a consumer transaction) | Myers: the hospital’s billing is a consumer transaction and consumer statutes apply | UH: the transaction was between physician and patient, not hospital and patient, so statutes do not apply | Court: trial court erred to grant summary judgment; remanded because material facts disputed about applicability |
| Whether the trial court properly discredited Myers’s affidavit on summary judgment | Myers: his properly framed affidavit is admissible under Civ.R.56(E) and creates genuine issues of fact | UH: affidavit was self-serving and not corroborated; not evidentiary quality | Court: party affidavits are permissible evidence; trial court misapplied standard and impermissibly weighed evidence |
| Whether UH is entitled to summary judgment on consumer claims based on the bona fide error defense | Myers: billing mistake does not necessarily establish bona fide error as a matter of law | UH: any consumer claim fails alternatively because the bona fide error defense applies | Court: did not resolve bona fide-error merits; remanded because genuine factual disputes exist |
| Whether denial of Myers’s partial summary judgment on CSPA applicability was erroneous | Myers: trial court should have granted partial summary judgment on CSPA applicability and specific violations | UH: opposed; factual disputes exist | Court: prematurely addressed by appellant; disposition of other issues makes that assignment premature |
Key Cases Cited
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (1996) (de novo standard for appellate review of summary judgment)
- Byrd v. Smith, 110 Ohio St.3d 24 (2006) (explaining burdens and evidentiary standards on Civ.R. 56 summary-judgment motions)