OhioHealth Corp. v. Neal
2017 Ohio 1125
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- OhioHealth sued Leo Neal for an unpaid hospital bill of $2,258.75 for services on May 30, 2012; an account statement and a general consent form were attached to the complaint.
- Neal was served but did not answer; the municipal court entered default judgment for OhioHealth on August 27, 2015.
- Neal filed a Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment in March 2016 (served late), then another motion in June 2016; a hearing occurred July 29, 2016.
- At the hearing the trial court found Neal had been properly served and treated on the date in question, and denied relief on August 1, 2016.
- Neal appealed pro se, assigning error that the complaint failed to state a cause of action (name variance, redacted account statement, unsigned consent), that the default judgment should be vacated, that there was insufficient evidence, and that he was denied access to evidence at the hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether complaint stated a cause of action | Complaint with redacted account statement and consent form suffices for action on account | Complaint used "Leo Neal" (not "Jr."), exhibits lack authorization/signatures; fraud/misrepresentation | Court: Complaint met Civ.R. 8(A); name variance not material; exhibits adequate; no fraud shown. |
| Whether default judgment should be vacated under Civ.R. 60(B) | Judgment proper; Neal failed to show meritorious defense or grounds under Civ.R. 60(B) | Sought relief under Civ.R. 60(B) alleging mistake/fraud/inadequate pleadings | Court: Neal did not satisfy GTE requirements (no meritorious defense); motion denied; no abuse of discretion. |
| Sufficiency of documentary evidence supporting claim | Account statement and signed consent establish treatment and balance due | Exhibits redacted/unsigned; argues lack of authorization and insufficient proof | Court: Account statement is proper for action on account; consent form contained patient and witness signatures; evidence sufficient. |
| Denial of opportunity to review evidence at 60(B) hearing (record/transcript issue) | Service of exhibits complied with Civ.R. 5 | Claimed exhibits filed but not served; sought review at hearing | Court of appeals: Neal failed to provide transcript of July 29 hearing; record inadequate, so must presume regularity; assignment fails. |
Key Cases Cited
- GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC Industries, Inc., 47 Ohio St.2d 146 (Ohio 1976) (sets three-part test for Civ.R. 60(B) relief)
- Blanchester Lumber & Supply, Inc. v. Coleman, 69 Ohio App.3d 263 (10th Dist. 1990) (account statement appropriate attachment in action on account)
- Natl. Packaging Corp. v. Belmont, 47 Ohio App.3d 86 (1st Dist. 1988) (idem sonans/name-variance rule)
- Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197 (Ohio 1980) (appellant bears burden to provide record for review)