Setters v. Durrani, 2022 Ohio 1022

Background

Dana and Craig Setters sued Dr. Abubakar Durrani and CAST for medical negligence, lack of informed consent, and loss of consortium; a jury awarded $849,906 in damages.
On appeal (Setters I), the appellate court held R.C. 2307.28 required a setoff for a pretrial global settlement between plaintiffs and West Chester Hospital/UC Health and remanded to determine the settlement amount and recalculate damages.
The settlement was confidential; the trial court ordered plaintiffs’ counsel to disclose the amount. Plaintiffs’ counsel emailed an allocation of $164,094.61, which counsel for WCH/UC Health confirmed; the signed settlement agreement was not filed.
While defendants’ appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court was pending, the trial court entered an order (Mar. 4, 2021) reducing the judgment by $164,094.61; that entry was later vacated as void for lack of jurisdiction and a substantially identical entry was reissued after the Supreme Court declined review.
Defendants moved for a new trial and Civ.R. 60(B) relief, arguing denial of due process because they were not allowed access to or to test the settlement documentation; the trial court denied relief.
The appellate court held the trial court lacked jurisdiction to act inconsistently with the pending appeal and that the method used to determine setoff (relying on counsel emails/unsworn confirmations without giving defendants access or an opportunity to test the evidence) violated due process; it reversed and remanded for a due-process-compliant determination of setoff.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to enter the Mar. 4, 2021 judgment reducing damages while defendants’ appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court was pending	Trial court had authority and its Mar. 4 entry should not have been vacated	Once appeal was perfected, trial court was divested of jurisdiction over matters inconsistent with the appellate court’s power	Trial court lacked jurisdiction; vacating the Mar. 4 entry was correct; plaintiffs’ assignment overruled
Whether the trial court’s process for determining setoff (accepting plaintiffs’ counsel’s emailed allocation, confirmed by settling parties’ counsel, without producing the settlement) satisfied due process	The court balanced confidentiality against defendants’ rights and used the least intrusive means	Denying defendants access to settlement or an opportunity to test the allocation deprived them of a meaningful opportunity to be heard	One-sided methodology violated due process; defendants entitled to a process (e.g., in camera review, protective order, redacted filing) to test/set the setoff amount
Whether defendants were entitled to new trial/relief from judgment under Civ.R. 59/Civ.R. 60(B) based on the denial of access to settlement evidence	Trial court properly exercised discretion in protecting confidentiality	Denial of access was an irregularity and justified relief	Appellate court sustained defendants’ assignment and remanded for a due-process-compliant determination (relief warranted)

Key Cases Cited

Setters v. Durrani, 164 N.E.3d 1159 (1st Dist.) (prior appellate decision remanding for calculation of setoff)
Daloia v. Franciscan Health Sys. of Cent. Ohio, 79 Ohio St.3d 98 (Ohio 1997) (trial court divested of jurisdiction when appeal is pending)
State ex rel. Bohlen v. Halliday, 164 Ohio St.3d 121 (Ohio 2021) (trial court may not act inconsistently with reviewing court’s jurisdiction)
Cirino v. Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Comp., 153 Ohio St.3d 333 (Ohio 2018) (subject-matter jurisdiction reviewed de novo)
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (due-process balancing requires meaningful notice and opportunity to be heard)
Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545 (U.S. 1965) (due process requires notice reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties)
Albertson v. Ryder, 85 Ohio App.3d 765 (Ohio Ct. App.) (trial court modification of judgment while appeal pending interferes with appellate review)