Summers v. Lancia Nursing Homes, Inc.
2016 Ohio 7935
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Karen J. Summers (administratrix of Arla Johnson's estate) sued Belmont Manor and two physicians for medical malpractice/wrongful death after Johnson fell several times and died in 2011.
- After a five-day jury trial in April 2015, the jury returned a defense verdict; judgment entered May 28, 2015.
- Summers timely moved for a new trial under Civ.R. 59 (based on exclusion of live expert testimony, peremptory challenge allocation, and asserted improper use of privileged ombudsman reports); the trial court denied the motion on July 21, 2015.
- The clerk’s docket entry indicated the denial order was mailed to plaintiff’s counsel; counsel later asserted they never received the mailing and discovered the docket entry on August 24, 2015.
- Summers filed a Civ.R. 60(B) motion (timely) seeking relief to permit an appeal; the trial court denied the 60(B) motion without an evidentiary hearing.
- The Seventh District reversed and remanded, holding the trial court abused its discretion by failing to hold an evidentiary hearing on the 60(B) motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Civ.R. 60(B) relief available where counsel claims they did not receive service of the order denying the new-trial motion? | Summers: Yes—60(B) is proper when a party claims nonreceipt of a judgment notice that prevents a timely appeal. | Appellees: No—docket shows clerk complied with Civ.R. 58(B); nonreceipt doesn’t affect validity except as App.R.4 provides. | Held: 60(B) is a proper vehicle; nonreceipt claims can be raised by 60(B). |
| Did Summers satisfy the GTE prongs for 60(B) entitlement (meritorious claim, proper ground, timeliness)? | Summers: Met all three—meritorious issues (trial rulings), ground under Civ.R.60(B)(1) (mistake/excusable neglect), motion filed within a reasonable time. | Appellees: Arguments meritless and clerk complied with rules, so no relief warranted. | Held: Timeliness and meritorious claim sufficiently alleged; plaintiff stated a potential ground under 60(B)(1). |
| Was the claimed ground cognizable as "mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect" under Civ.R. 60(B)(1)? | Summers: Counsel’s affidavits show mail procedures and nonreceipt; constitutes excusable neglect comparable to cases where employees failed to forward mail. | Appellees: The clerk fulfilled duties by mailing and docketing; nonreceipt doesn’t prove excusable neglect. | Held: The affidavits, if believed, could show excusable neglect; the factual dispute required an evidentiary hearing. |
| Did the trial court abuse its discretion by denying 60(B) without an evidentiary hearing? | Summers: Yes—when operative facts are alleged that, if true, justify relief, a hearing is required. | Appellees: No explicit argument that a hearing was required given docket compliance. | Held: Abuse of discretion—trial court must hold an evidentiary hearing to resolve factual dispute about notice/nonreceipt. Case reversed and remanded for hearing. |
Key Cases Cited
- GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC Indus., 47 Ohio St.2d 146 (Ohio 1976) (three-prong test for Civ.R. 60(B) relief)
- Griffin/Atkinson framework: Atkinson v. Grumman Ohio Corp., 37 Ohio St.3d 80 (Ohio 1988) (clerk must serve notice within three days; docket notation deemed service)
- State ex rel. Smith v. Fuerst, 89 Ohio St.3d 456 (Ohio 2000) (Civ.R. 60(B) is proper remedy when party claims nonreceipt despite clerk's compliance)
- Rose Chevrolet, Inc. v. Adams, 36 Ohio St.3d 17 (Ohio 1988) (movant need only allege —not prove— a meritorious defense for 60(B))
- Griffey v. Rajan, 33 Ohio St.3d 75 (Ohio 1987) (standard of review for abuse of discretion)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse-of-discretion defined)