Summers v. Lancia Nursing Homes, Inc.
103 N.E.3d 226
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Karen J. Summers, administratrix for Arla Johnson, sued Belmont Manor and two physicians for medical malpractice/wrongful death; jury returned defense verdict in April 2015.
- Summers filed a timely Civ.R. 59 motion for a new trial; the trial court denied the motion by entry dated July 21, 2015, which the plaintiff’s firm says it did not receive until August 24, 2015.
- Because the 30-day appeal period had passed before discovery of the denial, Summers moved under Civ.R. 60(B) to vacate the judgment to permit appeal, asserting counsel’s nonreceipt was excusable neglect.
- The trial court denied the Civ.R. 60(B) motion without an evidentiary hearing; the Seventh District reversed, holding an evidentiary hearing was required on the excusable-neglect prong and remanding for that limited hearing (Summers II).
- After an evidentiary hearing (two of four firm attorneys testified), the trial court again denied relief, finding counsel’s internal practices insufficient (no firm tickler system, inconsistent docket checks), and concluding there was no excusable neglect.
- On appeal from that denial Summers argued the trial court exceeded the scope of the limited remand and violated the law-of-the-case and appellate mandate rules by considering evidence about online docket-checking; the Seventh District affirmed the trial court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court violated the law-of-the-case doctrine by considering evidence about checking the online docket on remand | Summers: Remand was limited to whether counsel’s excuse was believable; evidence about online-docket practices exceeded that scope | Defendants: The remand required an evidentiary determination of excusable neglect; online-docket evidence is relevant to that fact inquiry | Court: No violation; evidence about docket-checking was within the limited factual inquiry on excusable neglect |
| Whether the mandate rule prevented the trial court from considering online-docket evidence | Summers: Mandate confined the trial court to a narrow issue and precluded new lines of inquiry | Defendants: Mandate vested jurisdiction to decide excusable-neglect fact issues; trial court may consider evidence relevant to that issue | Court: Mandate not violated; trial court may decide issues left open by the remand, including relevant docket-checking evidence |
| Whether counsel’s failure to discover the July 21 order constituted excusable neglect under Civ.R. 60(B)(1) | Summers: Firm attorneys and affidavits showed they did not receive the order; their practices supported excusable neglect | Defendants: Firm had knowledge of online dockets and no adequate internal system; failure to monitor was careless and inexcusable | Court: No excusable neglect; trial court reasonably found counsel’s systems insufficient and testimony unconvincing |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Civ.R. 60(B) relief | Summers: Trial court misapplied the limited remand and should have granted relief | Defendants: Trial court properly weighed credibility and surrounding facts and denied relief | Court: No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed based on credibility findings and lack of protective procedures at firm |
Key Cases Cited
- Nolan v. Nolan, 11 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio 1984) (defines law-of-the-case doctrine)
- State ex rel. Leon v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 123 Ohio St.3d 124 (Ohio 2009) (pro se litigants held to same standards regarding case management)
- Fuller v. Mengel, 100 Ohio St.3d 352 (Ohio 2003) (pro se standards and notice principles)
- Sabouri v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs., 145 Ohio App.3d 651 (Ohio Ct. App.) (pro se litigants and docketing expectations)