2022 Ohio 4453
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- April 2–3, 2018: Washburn, placed on an emergency psychiatric hold after threatening self-harm, was admitted to Marion General Hospital and issued a blue gown identifying him as a psych patient who may not leave.
- Police brought Washburn to the ER; he later attempted to run out through exterior doors while still on the hold.
- Hospital protective services officer Alex Johnson chased and took Washburn to the ground from behind; Washburn suffered a broken wrist and sued OHC and MGH for negligence.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing the complaint asserted a "medical claim" under R.C. 2305.113 and thus plaintiff had to attach an affidavit of merit per Civ.R. 10(D)(2), which Washburn did not do.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for defendants; Washburn appealed, arguing (1) his claims are ordinary negligence, not medical claims, and (2) the common-knowledge-and-experience exception removes the affidavit requirement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Washburn's suit is a "medical claim" under R.C. 2305.113 | Washburn: claims sound in ordinary negligence arising from a security/assault-type event, not medical diagnosis/care, so no affidavit required | Defendants: claim is against an enumerated medical provider (hospital/employee) and arises from care/treatment because preventing escape was pursuant to a doctor-issued psych hold | Held: Medical claim. Two-prong Stevic test met—defendant is an enumerated provider and the conduct (preventing escape under a doctor’s psychiatric hold) arose out of patient’s diagnosis/treatment; affidavit required. |
| Whether the common-knowledge-and-experience exception applies to excuse an affidavit of merit | Washburn: argues he "surrendered" and the use of force was plainly within lay knowledge so expert testimony/affidavit not needed | Defendants: use of force in involuntary hospitalization implicates trained security procedures and professional skill, so the standard of care is outside lay understanding | Held: Exception does not apply. Court found use-of-force in this context requires professional training/skill and expert knowledge; plaintiff must comply with affidavit rule. |
Key Cases Cited
- Estate of Stevic v. Bio-Med. Application of Ohio, Inc., 905 N.E.2d 635 (Ohio 2009) (adopts two-prong test for a "medical claim": (1) arises out of medical diagnosis/care/treatment and (2) asserted against enumerated providers)
- Browning v. Burt, 613 N.E.2d 993 (Ohio 1993) (defines "medical diagnosis" and "treatment" as relating to identification/alleviation of physical or mental illness)
- Rome v. Flower Mem. Hosp., 635 N.E.2d 1239 (Ohio 1994) (acts ancillary to a doctor-ordered treatment can constitute medical care)
- Fletcher v. Univ. Hosps. of Cleveland, 897 N.E.2d 147 (Ohio 2008) (discusses Civ.R. 10(D)(2) affidavit-of-merit requirement and purpose)
- Ramage v. Cent. Ohio Emergency Serv., Inc., 592 N.E.2d 828 (Ohio 1992) (common-knowledge exception explained: lay proof ok only when issue is within ordinary knowledge)