No. 96-203 | Ohio | Oct 8, 1997
Lead Opinion
In this case, we are asked to determine whether a default judgment can be entered against a defendant who was ultimately found not negligent at trial. We also look at the applicability of Civ.R. 6(B)(2) with respect to the propriety of default judgment. In addition, we examine the admissibility of evidence of bias stemming from commonality of insurance between the witness and a malpractice defendant. For the following reasons, we affirm in part and reverse and remand in part. Specifically, we affirm the court of appeals’ judgment ordering the entry of a default judgment against AIC and a new trial against EM Care. We reverse the court of appeals’ judgment to the extent that it denied a new trial against Dr. Guarnieri and IMS.
I
Appeal of AIC of Default Judgment
Three days before trial, Mrs. Davis filed a motion for default judgment against AIC, due to AIC’s failure to answer her amended complaint. On the morning of trial, Gary Bañas, the attorney representing AIC and Dr. Guarnieri, argued against the motion. Bañas claimed surprise that AIC was a party, since he had not known of the amended complaint and had not received a copy until two days before trial, although the amended complaint had been properly served upon AIC’s statutory agent thirteen months before. At trial, Bañas argued excusable neglect under Civ.R. 60(B), the rule for relief from judgment. Despite this irregularity, the judge denied the motion for default and permitted Bañas to file an answer instanter.
The answer filed by Bañas was miscaptioned “Answer of Defendant Immediate Medical Care, Inc.,” a corporation which had never been a party to the lawsuit. The plaintiff brought the error to the court’s attention at the close of the defendants’ evidence. Bañas responded that he had been confused from the beginning of the case about the names of the litigants in this action and asked that he be allowed to correct the mistake. The trial court stated that it would look at the pleadings and make a ruling. The court never directly ruled on the issue. However, the court denied plaintiff’s motion for default judgment, in effect, when it submitted verdict forms to the jury naming AIC as a defendant. On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the trial court abused its discretion in failing
Default judgment may be awarded when a defendant fails to make an appearance by filing an answer or otherwise- defending an action. Civ.R. 55(A). Civ.R. 6(B)(2) allows for an extension of time to file a late pleading within the trial court’s discretion “upon motion made after the expiration of the specified period * * * where the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect.” A ruling by the trial court on such a motion will be upheld absent an abuse of discretion. Marion Prod. Credit Assn. v. Cochran (1988), 40 Ohio St. 3d 265" court="Ohio" date_filed="1988-12-30" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/marion-production-credit-assn-v-cochran-6761357?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6761357">40 Ohio St.3d 265, 271, 533 N.E.2d 325, 331.
In determining whether neglect is excusable or inexcusable, all the surrounding facts and circumstances must be taken into consideration. Griffey v. Rajan (1987), 33 Ohio St. 3d 75" court="Ohio" date_filed="1987-11-10" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/griffey-v-rajan-6760010?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6760010">33 Ohio St.3d 75, 514 N.E.2d 1122, syllabus. Neglect under Civ.R. 6(B)(2) has been described as conduct that falls substantially below what is reasonable under the circumstances. State ex rel. Weiss v. Indus. Comm. (1992), 65 Ohio St. 3d 470" court="Ohio" date_filed="1992-12-11" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/state-ex-rel-weiss-v-industrial-commission-6766082?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6766082">65 Ohio St.3d 470, 473, 605 N.E.2d 37, 39, citing GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC Industries, Inc. (1976), 47 Ohio St. 2d 146" court="Ohio" date_filed="1976-07-21" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/gte-automatic-electric-inc-v-arc-industries-inc-6755853?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6755853">47 Ohio St.2d 146, 152, 1 O.O.3d 86, 89, 351 N.E.2d 113, 117.
Based upon this court’s decision in Miller v. Lint (1980), 62 Ohio St. 2d 209" court="Ohio" date_filed="1980-05-21" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/miller-v-lint-6756864?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6756864">62 Ohio St.2d 209, 16 O.O.3d 244, 404 N.E.2d 752, the court of appeals found that AIC failed to substantially comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure when it did not file an answer and then filed a deficient answer when given permission by the trial court. We agree.
In Lint, we held that although Civ.R. 6(B) grants broad discretion to the trial court concerning procedural matters, such discretion is not unlimited. Id. at 214, 16 Ohio Op. 3d 244" court="Ohio" date_filed="1980-05-21" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/miller-v-lint-6756864?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6756864">16 O.O.3d at 247, 404 N.E.2d at 755. Lint involved a defendant who did not file an answer in the specified time period and made no showing of excusable neglect. In ruling against the defendant we stated that “the failure of the defendant to comply, even substantially, with the procedures outlined in the Civil Rules subjected her to the motion for a default judgment, and the plaintiffs, having complied with the Civil Rules, had a right to have their motion heard and decided before the cause proceeded to trial on its merits.” Id. at 214, 16 Ohio Op. 3d 244" court="Ohio" date_filed="1980-05-21" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/miller-v-lint-6756864?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6756864">16 O.O.3d at 247, 404 N.E.2d at 755.
The trial court, based only on the statement of AIC’s counsel that he had received a copy of the amended complaint only two days before, found excusable neglect and permitted AIC’s attorney to file an answer instanter. We disagree with this determination. When viewed in its entirety, the conduct of AIC and of AIC’s counsel was unreasonable and did not constitute excusable neglect.
There was incontrovertible evidence that an amended complaint had been filed and that AIC should have been aware of its existence. To begin with, it is
AIC alleges that the subsequent jury verdict in favor of AIC should preclude a default judgment against it, since AIC had been exonerated on the merits. We reject this argument. The verdict rendered by the jury in AIC’s favor is irrelevant. A plaintiff has the right to have a motion for default judgment heard and decided before trial. Lint, 62 Ohio St. 2d 209" court="Ohio" date_filed="1980-05-21" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/miller-v-lint-6756864?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6756864">62 Ohio St.2d at 214,16 O.O.3d at 247, 404 N.E.2d at 755. A defendant’s right to force a plaintiff to prove his or her claim depends upon the defendant’s compliance with the Civil Rules and the timely filing of an answer to the complaint. Otherwise, the sanctions for noncompliance would lose their deterrent effect. Even though we recognize that it is preferable to hear a case upon its merits, the rules of procedure must be applied consistently, and AIC’s noncompliance cannot be overlooked. As we stated in Lint, “However hurried a court may be in its efforts to reach the merits of a controversy, the integrity of procedural rules is dependent upon consistent enforcement because the only fair and reasonable alternative thereto is complete abandonment.” Id. at 215, 16 Ohio Op. 3d 244" court="Ohio" date_filed="1980-05-21" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/miller-v-lint-6756864?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6756864">16 O.O.3d at 247, 404 N.E.2d at 755. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals regarding AIC.
II
Cross-Examination of Expert Witness
During trial, Dr. Guarnieri, the initial treating doctor, presented the expert testimony of Dr. Bruce D. Janiak. Dr. Janiak revealed during voir dire, outside the presence of the jury, that he was insured by Physician’s Insurance Exchange Company (“P.I.E.”). The parties do not dispute that although Dr. Guarnieri was not insured by P.I.E., other defendants in the case were, specifically EM Care. The plaintiff wanted to question Dr. Janiak concerning his insurance coverage to show bias. However, the trial court ruled that the insurance link could not be introduced as evidence of bias, as Dr. Janiak’s testimony was concerned solely with Dr. Guarnieri.
Plaintiff appealed, alleging that she should have been allowed to cross-examine Dr. Janiak to show bias based on similar insurance coverage. The court of appeals agreed in part and ordered a new trial against EM Care. Judge Hoffman, in his concurrence, however, stated his belief that a new trial was also warranted
The issue then, is whether the trial court improperly denied plaintiff the opportunity to cross-examine a medical expert concerning commonality of insurance. We examine this issue pursuant to an abuse-of-discretion standard. Calderon v. Sharkey (1982), 70 Ohio St. 2d 218" court="Ohio" date_filed="1982-06-23" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/calderon-v-sharkey-6757655?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6757655">70 Ohio St.2d 218, 24 O.O.Bd 322, 436 N.E.2d 1008" court="Ohio" date_filed="1982-06-23" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/calderon-v-sharkey-6757655?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6757655">436 N.E.2d 1008, syllabus.
In Ede v. Atrium S. OB-GYN, Inc. (1994), 71 Ohio St. 3d 124" court="Ohio" date_filed="1994-12-14" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/ede-v-atrium-south-ob-gyn-inc-6770884?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6770884">71 Ohio St.3d 124, 642 N.E.2d 365, syllabus, we stated that in a medical malpractice action, “evidence of a commonality of insurance interests between a defendant and an expert witness is sufficiently probative of the expert’s bias as to clearly outweigh any potential prejudice evidence of insurance might cause.” In that case, the defendant physician and the physician testifying as an expert witness on his behalf were insured by the same malpractice insurer. Our decision in Ede was necessitated by the Pavlovian response that many judges have in assuming that prejudice will result from disclosure of insurance coverage. In discouraging such rote behavior, we stated that “[t]he legal charade protecting juries from information they already know keeps hidden from them relevant information that could assist them in making their determinations.” Id. at 127, 642 N.E.2d 365" court="Ohio" date_filed="1994-12-14" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/ede-v-atrium-south-ob-gyn-inc-6770884?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6770884">642 N.E.2d at 368. This reasoning is supported by Evid.R. 102, which states: “The purpose of these rules is to provide procedures for the adjudication of causes to the end that the truth may be ascertained and proceedings justly determined.” Ede is further supported by Evid.R. 411, which states that evidence of liability insurance is admissible when offered for the purpose of proving bias or prejudice of a witness. The Evidence Rules favor inclusion of relevant evidence at trial, Evid.R. 402, limiting its admissibility only in specific circumstances, such as where prejudice outweighs probativeness. Evid.R. 403(A). We held in Ede that evidence of bias based on commonality of insurance between a malpractice defendant and an expert testifying in his or her favor was sufficiently probative to outweigh any possible prejudice.
A. Appeal of EM Care
Dr. Guarnieri called Dr. Bruce D. Janiak, a physician insured by P.I.E., as a medical expert to testify on her behalf. Although Dr. Guarnieri was not insured by P.I.E, the fact that her co-defendant EM Care had the same insurance company as the expert witness is sufficient for our decision in Ede to apply. Our holding in Ede was not limited to evidence of commonality of insurance between a defendant and the expert called by that defendant. In an action for medical malpractice, an expert witness having the same malpractice insurer as another defendant is subject to inquiry concerning bias if the witness testifies favorably for that defendant.
B. Cross-Appeal of Evelyn Davis
The court of appeals found that a new trial was warranted only against EM Care based on Ede. However, we believe that since Dr. Janiak’s testimony concerning the standard of care of emergency room physicians flowed to all other emergency care providers in this case, the court of appeals should have also granted a new trial against Dr. Guarnieri and IMS.
In his separate opinion below, Judge Hoffman stated that Dr. Janiak’s expert opinion may have been colored, since other defendants at trial were also insured by the same company. Specifically, he elaborated that “[o]nce it is recognized that Dr. Janiak’s opinion may be colored by his potential pecuniary bias, such opinion is necessarily colored as to all medical providers in the same lawsuit who share the same duty of care, including non-P.I.E. insured medical providers.”
Judge Hoffman concluded that while this was an extension of our holding in Ede, it was consistent with the rationale behind Ede of allowing the jury to consider whether Dr. Janiak’s opinion was biased as a result of his status as a P.I.E. insured and, if so, whether that bias affected the weight to be given to his opinion as it relates to the non-P.I.E. defendants on whose behalf it was offered
Since Dr. Janiak testified as to the standard of care for emergency room physicians, the jury should have been able to determine whether any possible bias existed which may have affected Dr. Janiak’s conclusions as to all emergency care providers similarly situated, irrespective of whether they were commonly insured. As plaintiff points out, it is a favorite tactic of medical malpractice co-defendants to have each other’s experts lend testimonial support to other defendants in the case. Where an expert has a financial incentive to be biased, the jury may determine whether that bias exists and how that bias affects all defendants who are contesting similar issues and who benefit from the expert’s testimony, regardless of commonality of insurance.
Ill
Therefore, the judgment of the court of appeals ordering a new trial against EM Care is affirmed. The court of appeals’ judgment denying a new trial against Dr. Guarnieri and IMS is reversed. We affirm the appellate court’s judgment ordering the entry of a default judgment against AIC. The cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part and cause remanded.
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting. I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion. Although I agree that AIC’s failure to properly answer the amended complaint entitled Davis to a default judgment, I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the later jury verdict exonerating Dr. Guarnieri and AIC is “irrelevant.” Rather, the verdict renders the trial court’s failure to grant a default judgment against AIC nonprejudicial. Additionally, I dissent from the extension of the holding in Ede v. Atrium S. OB-GYN, Inc. (1994), 71 Ohio St. 3d 124" court="Ohio" date_filed="1994-12-14" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/ede-v-atrium-south-ob-gyn-inc-6770884?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6770884">71 Ohio St.3d 124, 642 N.E.2d 365.
I. DEFAULT JUDGMENT
The majority frames the issue in the present case as whether a default judgment can be entered against a defendant who was ultimately found not negligent at' trial. Yet, in its discussion of the issue, the majority neglects the
“[I]f the suit should be decided against the complainant on the merits, the bill will be dismissed as to all the defendants alike — the defaulter as well as the others. If it be decided in the complainant’s favor, he will then be entitled to a final decree against all.” Id. at 554, 21 L.Ed. at 61.
The Frow doctrine has been widely accepted by treatises, see 10 Moore’s Federal Practice (3 Ed.1997), Section 55.25; 10 Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure (2 Ed.1983), Section 2690; 21 Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition (1997), Section 51:64, and by the federal circuits. See Farzetta v. Turner & Newall, Ltd. (C.A.3, 1986), 797 F.2d 151" court="3rd Cir." date_filed="1986-08-01" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/george-farzetta-v-turner--newall-474208?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="474208">797 F.2d 151, 154 (stating that Frow stands for the proposition that “if at trial facts are proved that exonerate certain defendants and that as a matter of logic preclude the liability of another defendant, the plaintiff should be collaterally estopped from obtaining a judgment against the latter defendant, even though it failed to participate in the proceeding in which the exculpatory facts were proved”); In re Uranium Antitrust Litigation (C.A.7, 1980), 617 F.2d 1248" court="7th Cir." date_filed="1980-02-15" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/in-re-uranium-antitrust-litigation-westinghouse-electric-corporation-v-rio-algom-limited-375952?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="375952">617 F.2d 1248, 1256-1258 (distinguishing Frow on grounds that, because liability in the case at bar was joint and several, nonliability of some defendants would not logically preclude liability of other defendants). In Internatl. Controls Corp. v. Vesco (C.A.2, 1976), 535 F.2d 742" court="2d Cir." date_filed="1976-05-13" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/fed-sec-l-rep-p-95552-international-controls-corp-v-robert-l-vesco-and-vesco--co-inc-335432?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="335432">535 F.2d 742, 746, fn. 4, the court questioned the continued validity of Frow in light of the passage of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but ultimately concluded that “[i]n any event, at most, Frow controls in situations where the liability of one defendant necessarily depends upon the liability of the others.”
In the present case, Davis alleged that these defendants were jointly and severally liable and specifically that AIC was responsible for the medical malpractice of its agent, Dr. Guarnieri, by way of the doctrine of respondeat superior. As this court stated in Strode v. Pressnell (1988), 38 Ohio St. 3d 207" court="Ohio" date_filed="1988-08-24" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/strock-v-pressnell-6760603?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6760603">38 Ohio St.3d 207, 217, 527 N.E.2d 1235, 1244, “It is axiomatic that for the doctrine of respondeat superior to
The Frow doctrine was meant to apply precisely in this situation, to prevent the absurdity that results in granting a judgment based on respondeat superior against the employer when the employee has committed no wrongdoing. Under Frow, the trial court could not enter a liability determination against AIC, the defaulting defendant, unless and until the remaining defendant, Dr. Guarnieri, was found liable on the merits. Because Dr. Guarnieri was not found liable on the merits, the trial court’s failure to grant the default judgment was not prejudicial.
The Maryland Court of Appeals, that state’s highest court, reached the same conclusion in the context of respondeat superior in a medical malpractice case. Curry v. Hillcrest Clinic, Inc. (1995), 337 Md. 412" court="Md." date_filed="1995-02-10" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/curry-v-hillcrest-clinic-inc-7918589?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="7918589">337 Md. 412, 653 A.2d 934. In that case, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant hospital was liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for the medical malpractice of its doctor. The hospital failed to answer and default judgment was entered against it. The hospital was permitted to participate in the scheduled arbitration hearing on the issue of damages only. The arbitration panel, however, found that to the extent that the doctor was negligent, that negligence was not the proximate cause of the plaintiffs injuries. The arbitration panel then entered a final judgment of no liability for the hospital. On appeal from the arbitration, the trial court vacated the final entry and permitted the hospital to defend on the merits. After a jury trial, a verdict was entered in favor of both the doctor and hospital on all counts. On appeal, the intermediate appellate court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to a default judgment against the hospital.
The Maryland Court of Appeals agreed, holding that Frow “certainly operates where the conduct of a defendant who appeared and successfully defended on the merits is the sole basis for liability of a defaulting defendant under the principle of respondeat superior.” 337 Md. 412" court="Md." date_filed="1995-02-10" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/curry-v-hillcrest-clinic-inc-7918589?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="7918589">337 Md. at 430, 653 A.2d at 943. Specifically, the court held that “in a negligence case, a finding that an appearing agent or servant has not committed actionable negligence inures to the benefit of a defaulting principal whose liability rests solely on respondeat superior.” Id. at 434, 653 A.2d 934" court="Md." date_filed="1995-02-10" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/curry-v-hillcrest-clinic-inc-7918589?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="7918589">653 A.2d at 945.
Even a more relaxed view of the Frow rule dictates a finding that the trial court’s failure to grant Davis’s motion for default judgment was not prejudicial. In Hunt v. Inter-Globe Energy, Inc. (C.A.10, 1985), 770 F.2d 145" court="3rd Cir." date_filed="1985-08-09" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/hb-hunt-and-lola-n-hunt-v-inter-globe-energy-inc-john-a-corrente-forest-n-simon-third-party-glenda-perry-simon-third-party-456449?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="456449">770 F.2d 145, 148, the court held that a default judgment entered against one of several defendants, each of whom is jointly and severally liable for plaintiffs damages, establishes only liability and not the defaulting defendant’s relative share of fault. Accord
II. COMMONALITY OF INSURANCE
I additionally disagree with the majority’s extension of Ede v. Atrium S. OB-GYN, Inc. (1994), 71 Ohio St. 3d 124" court="Ohio" date_filed="1994-12-14" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/ede-v-atrium-south-ob-gyn-inc-6770884?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6770884">71 Ohio St.3d 124, 642 N.E.2d 365, and join Justice Lundberg Stratton’s reasoning as stated in Part II of her dissent.
For these reasons, I would reverse the court of appeals’ judgment ordering entry of a default judgment against AIC. I would also reverse the court of appeals’ judgment ordering a new trial against EM Care and would affirm the court of appeals’ judgment denying a new trial against Dr. Guarnieri and IMS.
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting. The discretion of a trial court is one of the keystone principles of our judicial system. Because today’s decision erodes that vital principle, I respectfully dissent. I believe that the decision of the trial corut was soundly within its discretion and fell far short of being unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable so as to constitute an abuse of discretion. State v. Adams (1980), 62 Ohio St. 2d 151" court="Ohio" date_filed="1980-05-07" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/state-v-adams-6756850?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6756850">62 Ohio St.2d 151, 157, 16 O.O.3d 169, 173, 404 N.E.2d 144, 149; Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St. 3d 217" court="Ohio" date_filed="1983-07-06" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/blakemore-v-blakemore-6758010?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6758010">5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219, 5 OBR 481, 482, 450 N.E.2d 1140" court="Ohio" date_filed="1983-07-06" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/blakemore-v-blakemore-6758010?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6758010">450 N.E.2d 1140, 1142.
In State ex rel. Shafer v. Ohio Turnpike Comm. (1953), 159 Ohio St. 581, 590-591, 50 O.O. 465, 469-470,113 N.E.2d 14, 19, this court stated:
“4 Abuse of discretion, and especially gross and palpable abuse of discretion, which are the terms ordinarily employed to justify an interference with the exercise of discretionary power, implies not merely error of judgment, but perversity of will, passion, prejudice, partiality, or moral delinquency.’
U ‡ ‡ $
44 ‘[I]t must be kept in mind that “abuse of discretion” means more than an error of law or error of judgment * * *. It means “a discretion exercised to an end or purpose not justified by, and clearly against reason and evidence” * * *. Where the court does not exercise a discretion in the sense of being discreet, circumspect, [and] prudent and exercising cautious judgment, there is an abuse of discretion. * * * The term has been defined as “a view or action that no
Where a court exercises its discretion, as it did in this case, this court should not overturn the trial court’s decision absent a finding of an abuse of discretion. Martin v. Martin (1985), 18 Ohio St. 3d 292" court="Ohio" date_filed="1985-07-24" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/martin-v-martin-6758957?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6758957">18 Ohio St.3d 292, 294-295, 18 OBR 342, 344, 480 N.E.2d 1112" court="Ohio" date_filed="1985-07-24" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/martin-v-martin-6758957?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6758957">480 N.E.2d 1112, 1114.
I. DEFAULT MOTION
The majority’s paragraph one of the syllabus implies that the trial court did not decide the plaintiff’s motion for default before trial. However, the trial court held a record hearing, evaluated both the evidence and the credibility of defendant AIC’s position, stated its findings, and denied the motion for default. Therefore, the trial court did just what the syllabus mandates (unless the syllabus means “decided in the moving party’s favor,” which would remove all discretion from a trial court). ,
By concluding that the trial court denied the default motion “based only on the statement of AIC’s counsel,” the majority’s opinion also implies that the defendant failed to present evidence in its defense. Yet, AIC’s counsel, Mr. Bañas, clearly was prepared and offered to testify as to the reasons for the failure to answer. Plaintiff’s counsel stated that this would not be necessary, and therefore waived the formal presentation of evidence, allowing the court to rely on counsel’s representations. Plaintiff cannot now complain of such lack of “evidence.” The court stated that it would treat Mr. Banas’s representation “[a]s if [made] under oath” and then found that it believed Mr. Bañas. The fact that a certificate of service to Mr. Bañas was attached to the amended complaint created only a rebuttable presumption of service. Mr. Bañas represented that AIC had never forwarded the complaint and he had never received separate service. The court stated that it believed that the complaint had been sent but never received. The presumption was rebutted. We have no basis on which to substitute our judgment of credibility for that of the trial court.
The trial court had the full scope of the case before it and was in the best position to weigh all the competing considerations. In addition to Alliance Immediate Care, other parties were Immediate Medical Services, Inc., Alliance Community Hospital, and EM Care of Alliance. Even the plaintiff in the body of her amended complaint used “Alliance Immediate Corporation.” The trial court also used “Alliance Immediate Medical Services” in its ruling.
When AIC’s counsel mislabeled the defendant in the answer he prepared, it took plaintiffs counsel nearly three weeks (until June 10, at the close of defendants’ evidence) to bring the error to the court’s attention. Yet all parties and the court clearly knew that AIC, Dr. Guarnieri’s employer, was the defen
I do not condone the failures of AIC or its counsel to follow the procedural rules. AIC counsel’s follow-up, once he discovered the amended complaint, was sloppy lawyering indeed. But a judge has discretion to deny a motion for a default judgment after looking at all the equities involved in a particular situation. Martin, 18 Ohio St. 3d 292" court="Ohio" date_filed="1985-07-24" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/martin-v-martin-6758957?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6758957">18 Ohio St.3d 292, 18 OBR 342, 480 N.E.2d 1112" court="Ohio" date_filed="1985-07-24" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/martin-v-martin-6758957?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6758957">480 N.E.2d 1112.
The majority stresses the need to adhere to procedural rules. However, the trial court ordered all dispositive motions to be filed by April 1, 1994. Yet thirteen months after service of the amended complaint, on May 20, 1994, four days before trial, the plaintiff, without leave of court, filed for default. But the majority attaches no penalty to plaintiff’s failure to follow a court order on procedure. If we are going to strictly adhere to technical points of procedure, then fairness dictates that we should also address plaintiffs failure to follow the rules.
The second oral motion for default could not possibly have been ruled, on before trial as it was not made until the close of defendant’s evidence. At that point, AIC’s counsel stated that he had not realized the error in names until that moment. AIC’s. counsel asked, also by oral motion, albeit inartfully, to substitute names. After the verdict, the trial court granted the substitution and sub silentio overruled the second motion for default. Therefore, since substitution was granted, the answer could now be considered properly filed, contrary to plaintiffs claim that no answer has yet been filed. Although this was never done in writing, it was done orally and on the record. The trial court was well within its discretion to deny the second motion for default, considering that AIC had now fully participated and defended in the trial.
Default judgment should be reserved for cases where court procedures are ignored and the process flouted, as in Miller v. Lint (1980), 62 Ohio St. 2d 209" court="Ohio" date_filed="1980-05-21" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/miller-v-lint-6756864?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6756864">62 Ohio St.2d 209, 16 O.O.3d 244, 404 N.E.2d 752. This fact pattern is a far cry from Miller and, I believe, clearly fits within that area of discretion reserved to a trial court.
In addition, I join in Justice Cook’s well-reasoned dissent as to why the issue of default is harmless error, if error at all, because the jury cleared Dr. Guamieri, the employee, of all liability, thereby also exonerating her employer, AIC. Or conversely, AIC should now be permitted to file its proper Civ.R. 60(B) motion to set aside the default judgment. In addition, this court fails to order any hearing on damages. Civ. R. 55, concerning default, states:
« (^) * * * If, in order to enable the court to enter judgment or to carry it into effect, it is necessary to take an account or to determine the amount of damages or to establish the truth of any averment by evidence or to make an investigation
Defendant AIC should at least now be permitted a hearing on damages to present the results of the jury trial establishing no liability on the part of its employee, Dr. Guarnieri.
The law favors trying cases on the merits, not technicalities. Perotti v. Ferguson (1983), 7 Ohio St. 3d 1" court="Ohio" date_filed="1983-10-26" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/perotti-v-ferguson-6758188?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6758188">7 Ohio St.3d 1, 3, 7 OBR 256, 257, 454 N.E.2d 951" court="Ohio" date_filed="1983-10-26" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/perotti-v-ferguson-6758188?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6758188">454 N.E.2d 951, 952. This court has stated:
“Where no reply * * * is filed, there is authority for granting defendant judgment on the pleadings. However, the cases awarding judgment to a defendant for the inadvertence of an attorney to file a reply are, generally, old precedents occurring at a time when a lawsuit ofttimes developed into a test of an attorney’s astuteness rather than a determination of the merit of a client’s contention. To decide a lawsuit on the failure of an attorney to file a reply rather than on the merits of a claim would seem an anachronism in our present-day system of jurisprudence.” (Citation omitted.) McDonald v. Haught (1967), 10 Ohio St. 2d 43" court="Ohio" date_filed="1967-04-05" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/mcdonald-v-haught-6753797?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6753797">10 Ohio St.2d 43, 46, 39 O.O.2d 39, 41, 225 N.E.2d 235, 237-238.
The Rules of Civil Procedure expressly favor seeking substantial justice. Civ. R. 61 states:
“No error in either the admission or the exclusion of evidence and no error or defect in any ruling or order or in anything done or omitted by the court or by any of the parties is ground for granting a new trial or for setting aside a verdict or for vacating, modifying or otherwise disturbing a judgment or order, unless refusal to take such action appears to the court inconsistent with substantial justice. The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.”
But the real crux of this case is whether the court, in light of all these procedural issues, abused its discretion. I believe that the trial court did not, and I therefore dissent.
II. COMMONALITY OF INSURANCE
The second issue also involves the further erosion of a trial court’s discretion when ruling on evidentiary issues. The expansion of Ede v. Atrium S. OB-GYN, Inc. (1994), 71 Ohio St. 3d 124" court="Ohio" date_filed="1994-12-14" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/ede-v-atrium-south-ob-gyn-inc-6770884?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6770884">71 Ohio St.3d 124, 642 N.E.2d 365, to such remote and speculative connections as exist in this case further undermines a trial court’s discretion.
The majority relies on Ede to expand the “commonality of insurance interests” theory to new, per se horizons. The expert, Dr. Janiak, and the defendant for whom he testified, Dr. Guarnieri, did not have the same insurer (as in Ede); only
The majority finds Dr. Janiak’s broad, generalized background statements as to the duties of an emergency room physician to be sufficient to somehow qualify as expert testimony on the standard of care on behalf of the other emergency care defendants. Such background testimony was necessary to establish the foundation for his expert opinion on Dr. Guarnieri’s care. Yet Dr. Janiak testified that he had no opinion whether the other defendants’ conduct met the standard of care. Indeed, the plaintiff and each defendant had their own separate experts. And, in fact, each defendant physician saw the decedent at different times, with different symptoms, so the specific standards of care at each visit would differ.
In addition, on voir dire, Dr. Janiak testified that he was unaware that his premiums might be affected by this case since he testified he was also unaware of other defendants being insured by his insurer. He reaffirmed that he had no opinion as to the other physicians’ failure to meet any standard of care.
Against this backdrop, the trial court weighed the probative value versus the prejudicial effect of admitting the evidence and properly determined that cross-examination should not be permitted under Evid.R. 401(A) and 403. This was within the province of a trial court’s discretion: to limit the scope of the cross-examination of a medical expert on issues of bias and pecuniary interest. Calderon v. Sharkey (1982), 70 Ohio St. 2d 218" court="Ohio" date_filed="1982-06-23" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/calderon-v-sharkey-6757655?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6757655">70 Ohio St.2d 218, 24 O.O.3d 322, 436 N.E.2d 1008, syllabus. Absent abuse of that discretion, the trial court’s decision should be affirmed. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d at 157, 16 O.O.3d at 173, 404 N.E.2d at 149; State v. Apanovitch (1987), 33 Ohio St. 3d 19" court="Ohio" date_filed="1987-10-07" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/state-v-apanovitch-6759991?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6759991">33 Ohio St.3d 19, 22, 514 N.E.2d 394, 398.
Yet the majority now extends the holding of Ede to this case. The mere background testimony on the common issue, emergency room care, by one party’s expert somehow assumes center stage and opens the door to unduly prejudicial cross-examination. The discretion is removed from a trial court; under such a tenuous connection, a trial court must now allow cross-examination as a matter of law. Does this court really believe that the malpractice insurance industry is so devious that an expert for a non-insured can be persuaded to shade his testimony to benefit other defendants so as to keep his own premiums low? “Bias” means that a witness has altered or colored his or her testimony for personal reasons or self-interest. There is not a shred of evidence that this happened. In fact, the only evidence on record establishes the opposite.
It is even more difficult to see how Dr. Guamieri’s verdict would be affected by such cross-examination. Dr. Janiak was Dr. Guarnieri’s expert. Dr. Janiak was already prepared to testify in Dr. Guarnieri’s favor; that is why he was retained.
This was a lengthy trial with many experts. The jury verdicts in favor of Dr. Guarnieri, AIC, and IMS were unanimous. The judge listened to the voir dire of the witness, balanced the issues of relevance and prejudice, and properly excluded the evidence. Only if the exclusion of evidence amounts to a prejudicial abuse of discretion should the trial court’s decision be overturned. Calderon, 70 Ohio St. 2d 218" court="Ohio" date_filed="1982-06-23" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/calderon-v-sharkey-6757655?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6757655">70 Ohio St.2d at 222, 24 O.O.3d at 325, 436 N.E.2d at 1012. Such prejudice must affect a substantial right of a party. State ex rel. Avellone v. Lake Cty. Bd. of Commrs. (1989), 45 Ohio St.3d 58, 62, 543 N.E.2d 478, 482. Yet the majority reverses all the above verdicts without any evidence that such cross-examination, if allowed, would have made any difference. Therefore, I respectfully dissent. .