White v. Bhatt
102 N.E.3d 607
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Decedent Cheri White was admitted unconscious to MedCentral Hospital and placed on a ventilator; Dr. Bhatt ordered a neurology consult and Dr. Tan performed brain-death testing including manual brain-stem reflex tests and an apnea test.
- Family members (Charles White and Christina Christner) were informed of the testing and were present; they observed parts of the testing and were disturbed by Decedent being partially unclothed during the apnea test.
- Decedent was pronounced dead after testing; plaintiffs sued for negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress and for abuse of an unconscious/deceased person.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment; the trial court granted summary judgment for defendants on March 7, 2017. Plaintiffs appealed; Dr. Tan cross-appealed, arguing statutory immunity under R.C. 2108.40 was not addressed.
- On appeal the court reviewed de novo and affirmed summary judgment, holding plaintiffs failed to show serious emotional distress causally tied to defendants’ conduct and plaintiffs had not preserved certain discovery-based objections.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Negligent infliction of emotional distress / abuse of unconscious or deceased person | Plaintiffs say witnessing tests (including apnea test) and alleged mistreatment caused serious emotional distress and supports negligence/abuse claim | Defendants say either plaintiffs were intentional observers, not bystanders, and in any event plaintiffs cannot show severe, debilitating emotional injury causally tied to defendants’ conduct | Affirmed for defendants: plaintiffs failed to prove serious emotional distress causally connected to defendants’ conduct; abuse claim not recognized under these facts |
| Intentional infliction of emotional distress | Plaintiffs assert defendants’ conduct was extreme/outrageous and caused severe emotional distress | Defendants argue their conduct was proper medical testing and not extreme/outrageous; even if borderline, plaintiffs’ distress is not sufficiently serious | Affirmed for defendants: either conduct not extreme/outrageous or, independently, plaintiffs did not present evidence of serious emotional distress |
| Discovery — motion to compel not ruled on | Plaintiffs contend trial court’s failure to rule impaired their ability to oppose summary judgment | Defendants note plaintiffs did not seek relief under Civ.R. 56(F) to delay summary judgment pending discovery | Affirmed: no abuse of discretion; plaintiffs failed to invoke Civ.R. 56(F), so court could rule on summary judgment without ruling on motion to compel |
| Cross-appeal: statutory immunity (R.C. 2108.40) for brain-death determination (Dr. Tan) | Dr. Tan argues statutory immunity shields him from liability for actions in determining brain death | Plaintiffs oppose (not detailed) | Cross-appeal dismissed as moot: court found alternate independent ground for summary judgment and did not reach statutory-immunity argument |
Key Cases Cited
- Smiddy v. The Wedding Party, 30 Ohio St.3d 35 (Ohio 1987) (summary-judgment standard review)
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (Ohio 1996) (de novo review of summary judgment)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (moving party’s burden in summary judgment)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (Ohio 1996) (framework for summary-judgment burdens)
- Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317 (Ohio 1977) (elements for granting summary judgment)
- Walker v. Firelands Community Hosp., 170 Ohio App.3d 785 (Ohio App. 2007) (elements for negligent infliction of emotional distress by bystander)
- Paugh v. Hanks, 6 Ohio St.3d 72 (Ohio 1983) (bystander emotional-distress doctrine; foreseeability factors)
- Burris v. Grange Mut. Cos., 46 Ohio St.3d 84 (Ohio 1989) (definition of bystander)
- Heiner v. Moretuzzo, 73 Ohio St.3d 80 (Ohio 1995) (bystander limitations)
- Banford v. Aldrich Chem. Co., 126 Ohio St.3d 210 (Ohio 2010) (severity of emotional distress; court may decide as matter of law)