Whitaker v. Advantage RN, L.L.C.
2012 Ohio 5959
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Whitaker, pro se, sued Advantage RN, LLC (ARN) and others in Butler County, Ohio, after ARN terminated his assignment.
- In December 2008, Whitaker entered a 13-week ICU travel-nurse contract with ARN for Pitt County Memorial Hospital in North Carolina, tying employment to hospital QA standards.
- The contract required Whitaker to comply with Pitt Hospital's PBDS quality-standard assessment; if Whitaker failed, ARN’s obligations could be discharged.
- Pitt Hospital required Whitaker to pass PBDS; after coaching and study, Whitaker allegedly did not meet hospital standards and was not hired.
- Whitaker sought roughly $1,002 in reimbursements and later expanded claims to breach of contract, misrepresentation, and fraud; ARN denied.
- A magistrate later granted summary judgment to appellees on misrepresentation and fraud and dismissed Price and Reynolds; Whitaker’s breach claim survived initially but was later resolved in favor of appellees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Whitaker satisfy the contract's condition precedent? | Whitaker argues test format/materials were wrong; may have met standards; thus contract enforceable. | Whitaker failed to meet Pitt Hospital standards; condition precedent not satisfied;ARN not liable. | Yes; Whitaker did not meet Pitt's standards; contract not enforceable. |
| Were appellees entitled to summary judgment on the breach claim, given evidence about test results and coaching? | Disputes over test results and representations create material facts. | No genuine issue; Pitt's findings and hospital standards control; no breach by ARN. | Yes; summary judgment for appellees on breach of contract. |
| Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying a Civ.R. 60(B) motion to vacate? | New evidence could show different issues; relief warranted. | Arguments reiterate prior claims; no basis for relief under Civ.R. 60(B). | No; denial not an abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (Ohio 1996) (movant bears initial burden in civil-directed summary judgment)
- Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, Inc., 82 Ohio St.3d 367 (Ohio 1998) (summary judgment standard; reasonable minds may differ)
- Byrd v. Smith, 110 Ohio St.3d 24 (Ohio 2006) (contradictory affidavits by movant do not create fact issues)
- Webb v. Pewano, Ltd., 2009-Ohio-2629 (Ohio 2009) (clarifies Civ.R. 60(B) standards and movant retention)
- Suter v. Farmers' Fertilizer Co., 100 Ohio St. 403 (Ohio 1919) (condition precedent principle in contract performance)