2021 Ohio 965
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Kelly Turkoly won a prior medical-malpractice/medical-battery jury verdict against Dr. Richard Gentile; Gentile subsequently sued Kelly for tortious interference.
- Gentile’s tortious-interference action was dismissed (directed verdict) and affirmed on appeal; continued contentious litigation followed.
- On July 12, 2016 the Turkolys sued Gentile for malicious prosecution, abuse of process, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED).
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Gentile on malicious prosecution and defamation, leaving abuse of process and IIED for trial; the Turkolys did not appeal the summary-judgment order.
- At trial the magistrate granted Gentile’s motion for directed verdict on the remaining claims (abuse of process and IIED); the trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision and entered final judgment for Gentile.
- The Turkolys appealed, arguing the directed verdicts were erroneous; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether directed verdict proper under Civ.R. 50 | Turkolys: trial evidence created factual issues for jury on abuse of process and IIED | Gentile: plaintiffs failed to produce sufficient material evidence on essential elements | Directed verdict affirmed; de novo review finds insufficient evidence for both claims |
| Whether abuse-of-process requires probable cause | Turkolys: court should abandon precedent and eliminate probable-cause element | Gentile: established law requires probable cause; abuse of process distinct from malicious prosecution | Court rejects plaintiffs’ request to discard precedent; probable cause remains an element |
| Whether plaintiffs proved probable cause for defendant’s prior suit (element of abuse of process) | Turkolys: testimony and documents showed Gentile honestly believed interference occurred (probable cause) | Gentile: evidence fails to raise genuine issue; record supports conclusion that reasonable minds could only find no probative evidence of probable cause | Court: plaintiffs presented conflicting evidence and did not meet burden; reasonable minds could come to one adverse conclusion — no probative evidence of probable cause |
| Whether defendant’s conduct was "extreme and outrageous" for IIED | Turkolys: filing and prosecuting a "fictitious" suit over years is outrageous and beyond bounds of decency | Gentile: bringing and prosecuting a lawsuit is a legally sanctioned act; mere filing insufficient for IIED | Court: legal-process use—even if malicious—does not as a matter of law meet the high Yeager standard for extreme and outrageous conduct; directed verdict proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Yaklevich v. Kemp, Schaeffer & Rowe Co., L.P.A., 68 Ohio St.3d 294 (1994) (distinguishing abuse of process from malicious prosecution; presence or absence of probable cause divides the two torts)
- Yeager v. Local Union 20, Teamsters, 6 Ohio St.3d 369 (1983) (sets the high standard for "extreme and outrageous" conduct required for IIED)
- Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 95 Ohio St.3d 512 (2002) (describing the "reasonable minds" sufficiency test applicable to directed verdict review)
- White v. Leimbach, 131 Ohio St.3d 21 (2011) (clarifying the "any evidence of substantive probative value" sufficiency standard)
- Huber v. O'Neill, 66 Ohio St.2d 28 (1981) (defining "probable cause" for purposes of related tort analyses)