2022 Ohio 4644
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- Valarie Qualls suffered a debilitating MCA stroke in September 2016, leaving her with severe brain damage, left‑side paralysis, and largely nonverbal/persistent vegetative‑state symptoms while residing at Echo Manor.
- In April 2018, after hospitalization at OSU, Qualls was diagnosed with Trichomonas (an STD); OSU reported a suspected sexual assault to police. No suspect was ever identified and no criminal charges were filed.
- Fabian Qualls, administrator of Valarie’s estate, sued Peregrine Health Services and Echo Manor (and 15 John Doe defendants) in June 2020 alleging negligence, violations of R.C. 3721.13, emotional‑distress claims, and assault/battery (the latter pled only against the John Does).
- The trial court granted summary judgment to Peregrine and Echo Manor, concluding the first four claims were medical claims barred by the one‑year statute (R.C. 2305.113) and that R.C. 2305.16 tolling did not apply; it also granted judgment on assault/battery reasoning the facility wasn’t the exclusive location of assault.
- On appeal the Tenth District reversed and remanded: it held the trial court applied the wrong paragraph of R.C. 2305.16 (requiring adjudication/institutionalization) and that there were genuine factual disputes about Qualls’s mental state at accrual, so tolling might apply; it also held the court could not grant summary judgment to Peregrine/Echo Manor on assault/battery claims that had been alleged only against unnamed John Does.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 2305.16 tolls the one‑year medical‑claim statute (R.C. 2305.113) because Qualls was of unsound mind when claims accrued | Qualls was in a persistent vegetative state since 2016 and therefore was of unsound mind at accrual (tolling under first paragraph of R.C. 2305.16) | Appellees argued tolling not shown; trial court treated requirement as adjudication or institutionalization (second paragraph) and denied tolling | Reversed: trial court misapplied the statute; evidence creates a genuine issue whether Qualls was of unsound mind at accrual so tolling may apply and summary judgment on that ground was improper |
| Whether appellees were entitled to summary judgment on assault and battery claims | Plaintiff noted assault/battery were pled only against John Does and challenged the propriety of granting SJ to Peregrine/Echo Manor | Appellees argued evidence didn’t exclude other locations/actors (OSU, transport), so no genuine issue that assault occurred at Echo Manor or by facility actors | Reversed: trial court erred to grant SJ to Peregrine/Echo Manor because the assault/battery claims were not pled against them (and court’s alternative factual rationale was unnecessary) |
Key Cases Cited
- Capella III, L.L.C. v. Wilcox, 190 Ohio App.3d 133 (appellate de novo review of summary judgment) (explaining standard)
- Andersen v. Highland House Co., 93 Ohio St.3d 547 (summary judgment de novo review)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (moving party’s initial burden on Civ.R. 56)
- Bowman v. Lemon, 115 Ohio St. 326 (issue of unsoundness of mind should be submitted to jury)
- Fisher v. Ohio Univ., 63 Ohio St.3d 484 (definition/discussion of "unsound mind")
- Harris v. Liston, 86 Ohio St.3d 203 (when cause of action accrues)
- Akers v. Alonzo, 65 Ohio St.3d 422 (accrual principles)
- Almanza v. Kohlhorst, 85 Ohio App.3d 135 (evidence supporting tolling under first paragraph)
- Bradford v. Surgical & Med. Neurology Assocs., Inc., 95 Ohio App.3d 102 (distinction between first and second paragraphs of R.C. 2305.16)
- Wells v. Bowie, 87 Ohio App.3d 730 (unsoundness of mind is a jury question when evidence in dispute)
- Gunsorek v. Pingue, 135 Ohio App.3d 695 (tolling/unsoundness evidentiary discussion)
- Love v. Port Clinton, 37 Ohio St.3d 98 (elements of battery)
- Smith v. John Deere Co., 83 Ohio App.3d 398 (definition of assault)