Wilhelms v. ProMedica Health Sys., Inc.
205 N.E.3d 1159
Ohio Ct. App.2023Background
- Andrew Wilhelms was hospitalized for COVID-19 between March 29 and May 30, 2020; during hospitalization he was placed on a ventilator and later developed pressure ulcers (bed sores).
- Plaintiffs (Andrew and Valerie Wilhelms) sued ProMedica entities and Dr. Moshir Jacob for medical malpractice, alleging negligent nursing/staffing/supervision that caused permanent injuries including pressure ulcers.
- Defendants moved to dismiss/judgment on the pleadings, arguing the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act) preempts or immunizes the claims because a ventilator is a “covered countermeasure” and the alleged losses relate to its use.
- The trial court granted the motions, concluding as a matter of law that the Wilhelms’ injuries had the requisite causal relationship to the ventilator and thus fell within PREP Act immunity; it also held the willful-and-wanton claims belonged in federal court if PREP Act applied.
- The Sixth District reversed, holding the trial record did not establish causation as a matter of law, that genuine factual issues remain about whether the PREP Act applies, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PREP Act immunity bars malpractice claims where a ventilator (a covered countermeasure) was used | Wilhelms: Complaint and record do not establish that the pressure ulcers were caused by or resulted from administration/use of the ventilator; causation is factual and unresolved | Defendants: Ventilator is a covered countermeasure; injuries during its use have requisite causal relationship, so PREP Act immunity preempts/blocks claims | Reversed trial court; record insufficient to establish causation as matter of law; PREP Act immunity not established at this stage; remand for fact development |
| Whether the trial court properly resolved defendants’ motions under Civ.R. 12(B) vs. 12(C) standards | Wilhelms: Facts disputed; under 12(C) pleadings and inferences must be construed for non-movant, so judgment was improper | Defendants: Court may consider records/affidavits and conclude PREP Act applies, warranting dismissal | Appellate court treated motions as 12(C), applied de novo review, and held material factual issues exist so judgment on pleadings was erroneous |
| Whether willful-and-wanton claims must be litigated in federal court if PREP Act applies | Wilhelms: Willful-and-wanton claims should remain pending in state court absent a proper PREP Act finding | Defendants: If PREP Act applies, certain claims may fall under exclusive federal removal/venue | Because PREP Act applicability was not established, the trial court erred in sending willful-and-wanton claims to federal court; remanded in full |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Bush v. Spurlock, 42 Ohio St.3d 77, 537 N.E.2d 641 (standard for reviewing dismissals under Civ.R.12(B)(1) and (6))
- O'Brien v. Univ. Community Tenants Union, 42 Ohio St.2d 242, 327 N.E.2d 753 (requirement that dismissal under Civ.R.12(B)(6) be appropriate beyond doubt)
- Phung v. Waste Management, Inc., 23 Ohio St.3d 100, 491 N.E.2d 1114 (pleadings construed as true for motion to dismiss)
- State ex rel. Midwest Pride IV, Inc. v. Pontius, 75 Ohio St.3d 565, 664 N.E.2d 931 (distinguishing Civ.R.12(C) and Civ.R.12(B)(6) review and examining entire record)
- Joyce v. Gen. Motors Corp., 49 Ohio St.3d 93, 551 N.E.2d 172 (need to examine journal and proceedings to determine basis for lower court judgment)
- Saldana v. Glenhaven Healthcare LLC, 27 F.4th 679 (9th Cir.) (fact-intensive PREP Act inquiry; remand where complaint did not embed federal PREP Act question)