Stewart v. Vivian (Slip Opinion), 2017 Ohio 7526

Michelle Stewart attempted suicide, was admitted to a psychiatric unit, placed on 15‑minute visual checks ordered by Dr. Rodney Vivian, and later was found hanging and transferred to the ICU where she died after life support was withdrawn.
Dennis Stewart (husband and administrator) sued Dr. Vivian for medical malpractice and wrongful death; Mercy Hospital settled earlier and was dismissed.
Dr. Vivian moved in limine to exclude statements he made to Michelle’s family in the ICU under Ohio’s apology statute, R.C. 2317.43(A); the trial court granted the motion and excluded the statements.
The jury found for Dr. Vivian on negligence. The Twelfth District Court of Appeals affirmed the exclusion, relying on legislative history to interpret “apology” to include admissions of fault.
The Ninth District had reached the opposite view in Davis v. Wooster, holding the statute protects only “pure” expressions of sympathy, not admissions of fault, creating a conflict certified to the Ohio Supreme Court.
The Ohio Supreme Court held R.C. 2317.43(A) unambiguous: a "statement[] expressing apology" means a statement expressing regret for an unanticipated outcome and may include an acknowledgment that care fell below the standard of care; it affirmed the Twelfth District’s judgment on different grounds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Stewart)	Defendant's Argument (Vivian)	Held
Whether R.C. 2317.43(A) bars admission of healthcare-provider statements that admit fault made while apologizing or commiserating	The statute is ambiguous; it should not bar admissions of fault — the Ninth District’s reading (Davis) is correct	The statute protects statements expressing apology/sympathy, including statements admitting fault; Dr. Vivian’s comments were covered and inadmissible	Yes. The Court held the statute unambiguous: a statement expressing apology may include an acknowledgment that care fell below the standard and is inadmissible as an admission of liability under R.C. 2317.43(A).
Proper method of statutory interpretation when a statutory term is undefined	Legislative history and context should limit the statute to pure condolences	Plain‑meaning/dictionary definition controls because the term is undefined	The Court applied the ordinary dictionary meaning and rejected resort to legislative history once it found the statute unambiguous.
Whether trial court abused discretion excluding Dr. Vivian’s ICU statements	Exclusion was erroneous; the statements did not actually express apology or regret and thus were admissible	Statements were attempts at commiseration and therefore barred	Majority did not decide abuse‑of‑discretion reversal on facts; it resolved the broader statutory meaning and affirmed the appellate judgment; C.J. O’Connor dissented as to application and would have reversed.

Davis v. Wooster Orthopaedics & Sports Medicine, Inc., 952 N.E.2d 1216 (Ohio Ct. App.) (held apology statute protects only pure expressions of sympathy, not admissions of fault)
State v. Chappell, 939 N.E.2d 1234 (Ohio 2010) (illustrative use of dictionary meanings in statutory interpretation)
Jacobson v. Kaforey, 75 N.E.3d 203 (Ohio 2016) (unambiguous statutes are applied according to plain meaning; avoid legislative‑history inquiry)
Estate of Johnson v. Randall Smith, Inc., 989 N.E.2d 35 (Ohio 2013) (appellate review standard for exclusion of evidence under R.C. 2317.43 is abuse of discretion)
Sears v. Weimer, 55 N.E.2d 413 (Ohio 1944) (unambiguous statutory language must be applied as written)