Wessell Generations, Inc. v. Bonnifield
950 N.E.2d 989
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Wessell Generations, Inc. sued Bonnifield and Benzing for an unpaid nursing-home balance; Bonnifield died, her estate was substituted and later dismissed after settlement.
- Benzing had signed a nursing-home admission as “Responsible Person,” agreeing to pay the balance and a revenue-loss amount if she failed to cooperate in Medicaid eligibility.
- Wessell deposed Benzing about care and finances and asked about the Medicaid application and Dougherty’s involvement.
- Wessell subpoenaed Dougherty to testify; Dougherty and DJFS moved to quash, asserting privilege under R.C. 5101.27 for confidential Medicaid information.
- The trial court denied the motion to quash, ruling that Benzing information fell outside R.C. 5101.27’s scope and limiting disclosure; Dougherty and DJFS appealed.
- The appellate court held that R.C. 5101.27 provides only a qualified privilege and a balancing of interests was required; remanded for in camera review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by denying quash without balancing. | Wessell argues confidentiality under R.C. 5101.27 should bar testifying. | DJFS/Dougherty contend information is privileged and disclosure is barred. | Balancing required; denial reversed in part and remanded for in camera review. |
| Whether R.C. 5101.27’s confidentiality governs civil discovery or requires balancing. | Wessell asserts confidentiality applies but not as absolute bar in civil discovery. | Dougherty/DJFS contend broad protection of confidential Medicaid info. | R.C. 5101.27 is a qualified privilege; trial court must balance interests in discovery. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Parker v. Lucas Cty. Job & Family Servs., 176 Ohio St.3d 715 (Ohio 2008) (confidential info not absolute privilege; balancing in discovery permissible)
- State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Jones-Kelley, 118 Ohio St.3d 81 (Ohio 2008) (open-records vs. civil discovery distinctions; weighing interests)
- Henneman v. Toledo, 35 Ohio St.3d 241 (Ohio 1988) (balancing confidential info against discovery needs; non-absolute privilege)
- Springfield Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Ohio Assn. of Pub. School Emp., Local 530, 106 Ohio App.3d 855 (Ohio App.3d 1995) (in camera balancing to protect confidentiality in discovery)
- Davis v. Trumbull Cty. Children Servs. Bd., 24 Ohio App.3d 180 (Ohio App.3d 1985) (balancing confidential child services records in discovery)