HAVEL, APPELLEE, v. VILLA ST. JOSEPH ET AL., APPELLANTS.
No. 2010-2148
Supreme Court of Ohio
Submitted September 21, 2011—Decided February 15, 2012.
131 Ohio St.3d 235, 2012-Ohio-552
{20} When Gullotta resigned from APV, his employer had placed him in a light-duty position consistent with his medical restrictions. When he complained about those duties, APV made available another light-duty position similarly consistent with his medical restrictions as they then existed. Gullotta refused both positions. The additionally allowed medical condition, recognized since his resignation, does not change the fact that Gullotta unjustifiably refused light-duty work in April 2007.
{21} Thus, we agree with the court of appeals that the commission abused its discretion when it determined that there was evidence to support a finding of new and changed circumstances since the November 2007 order. Nothing had changed that would affect the finding in that order that Gullotta had unjustifiably refused to do his light-duty job and also refused his employer’s offer of an alternative light-duty position. He presented no evidence of circumstances, new or changed, that would demonstrate a loss of wages as a result of TTD. The commission abused its discretion when it exercised continuing jurisdiction. Thus, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur.
Richard L. Williger Co., L.P.A., and Richard L. Williger, for appellee.
Philip J. Fulton Law Office, Ross R. Fulton, and Philip J. Fulton, for appellant Guiseppe Gullotta.
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Gerald H. Waterman and Elise Porter, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellant Industrial Commission of Ohio.
{1} The Eighth District Court of Appeals certified a conflict between its decision in this case and a decision of the Tenth District Court of Appeals in Hanners v. Ho Wah Genting Wire & Cable SDNBHD, 10th Dist. No. 09AP-361, 2009-Ohio-6481, 2009 WL 4698618, on the following question: “Whether
{2} In 1968, voters adopted an amendment to the
{3} Both
{4} In addition to the obvious question of judicial discretion regarding whether to bifurcate damages claims, the related question presented by this case is whether
{5} In the uncodified language of 2004 Am.Sub.S.B. No. 80 (“S.B. 80“), 150 Ohio Laws, Part V, 7915, the legislature expressed its intent to create a right to bifurcate claims for compensatory damages from claims for punitive damages in tort actions. Thus,
Background
{6} On October 3, 2008, Villa St. Joseph, a nursing-home facility in Garfield Heights, Ohio, associated with the Village at Marymount, admitted John E. Havel for rehabilitation following hip surgery. While receiving care, he developed severe decubitus ulcers that required surgery. Following that surgery, on January 21, 2009, Maple Wood Care Centre, a nursing home in Streetsboro, Ohio, admitted him for continued care and rehabilitative assistance. There he contracted bacterial sepsis, necessitating treatment that he received at both Marymount and Lakewood Hospitals. Havel died on August 29, 2009, from bacterial sepsis caused by skin ulcers.
{7} Sandra Havel (“Havel“), as the personal representative of the estate of John Havel, filed a complaint seeking both compensatory and punitive damages from Villa St. Joseph, Village at Marymount, Maple Wood Care Centre and Northern Health Facilities, Inc., d.b.a. Maple Wood Care Centre, and Extendicare Health Services, Inc., alleging claims for medical malpractice, wrongful death, and violations of the Ohio Nursing Home Patients’ Bill of Rights pursuant to
{8} Villa St. Joseph appealed to the Eighth District Court of Appeals, which affirmed the judgment of the trial court. The appellate court held that
{9} The court certified its decision to be in conflict with the Tenth District Court of Appeals in Hanners, and we agreed to resolve the conflict between these appellate districts, 127 Ohio St.3d 1530, 2011-Ohio-376, 940 N.E.2d 985.
Constitutionality of R.C. 2315.21(B)
{10} Villa St. Joseph asserts that
{11} Havel urges that
{12} The Modern Courts Amendment of 1968 empowers this court to create rules of practice and procedure for the courts of this state. In Proctor v. Kardassilaris, 115 Ohio St.3d 71, 2007-Ohio-4838, 873 N.E.2d 872, we explained that
{13} The plain language of
(1) In a tort action that is tried to a jury and in which a plaintiff makes a claim for compensatory damages and a claim for punitive or exemplary damages, upon the motion of any party, the trial of the tort action shall be bifurcated as follows:
(a) The initial stage of the trial shall relate only to the presentation of evidence, and a determination by the jury, with respect to whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover compensatory damages for the injury or loss to person or property from the defendant. During this stage, no party to the tort action shall present, and the court shall not permit a party to present, evidence that relates solely to the issue of whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover punitive or exemplary damages for the injury or loss to person or property from the defendant.
(b) If the jury determines in the initial stage of the trial that the plaintiff is entitled to recover compensatory damages for the injury or loss to person or property from the defendant, evidence may be presented in the second stage of the trial, and a determination by that jury shall be made, with respect to whether the plaintiff additionally is entitled to recover punitive or exemplary damages for the injury or loss to person or property from the defendant.
(Emphasis added.)
{14} The language of
The court, after a hearing, in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, or when separate trials will be conducive to expedition and economy, may order a separate trial of any claim, cross-claim, counterclaim, or third-party claim, or of any separate issue or of any number of claims, cross-claims, counterclaims, or third-party claims, or issues, always preserving inviolate the right to trial by jury.
(Emphasis added.)
{15} Although, in some instances, the statute and the rule can be applied without conflict, such as when a tort action is not involved, there is an inconsistency between the statute and the rule when an action falls within the boundaries of
Substantive versus Procedural Law
{16} Given that an inconsistency exists, the statute’s constitutionality depends upon whether the statute is a substantive or procedural law. In Krause v. State, 31 Ohio St.2d 132, 285 N.E.2d 736 (1972), overruled on other grounds by Schenkolewski v. Cleveland Metroparks Sys., 67 Ohio St.2d 31, 426 N.E.2d 784 (1981), paragraph one of the syllabus, we defined “substantive” in the context of the constitutional amendment to mean “that body of law which creates, defines and regulates the rights of the parties. * * * The word substantive refers to common law, statutory and constitutionally recognized rights.” Krause at 145. By contrast, procedural law “prescribes methods of enforcement of rights or obtaining redress.” Roe v. Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region, 122 Ohio St.3d 399, 2009-Ohio-2973, 912 N.E.2d 61, ¶ 34, citing French v. Dwiggins, 9 Ohio St.3d 32, 34, 458 N.E.2d 827 (1984).
{17} A right is defined as “[a] power, privilege, or immunity secured to a person by law,” as well as “[a] legally enforceable claim that another will do or will not do a given act.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1436 (9th Ed.2009). Compare
{18} We are aided in our analysis of whether
{19} In State v. Hughes, 41 Ohio St.2d 208, 324 N.E.2d 731 (1975), we considered a conflict between
{20} We also recognized the statutory creation of a right in State v. Rahman, 23 Ohio St.3d 146, 148, 492 N.E.2d 401 (1986), which held that
{21} The statutes at issue in Hughes and Rahman did not contain express language declaring the creation of a substantive right. Nonetheless, in determining that those statutes created substantive rights, our analyses considered the operative effect of each statute. Similarly, here, the express language of the statute does not declare the creation of a right, but its operative effect creates a right because a party in a tort action is entitled to bifurcation upon request; thus, we must determine if application of the procedural rule would invalidate that right.
{22} In State v. Greer, 39 Ohio St.3d 236, 530 N.E.2d 382 (1988), we considered the interplay between
{23} In the instant case, applying
Mandatory Bifurcation
{24} In Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 115 Ohio St.3d 455, 2007-Ohio-5248, 875 N.E.2d 919, we addressed whether the prima facie filing requirements of
{25} Unlike the statutes at issue in Norfolk, however,
{26} By eliminating judicial discretion,
Uncodified Statutory Language
{27} The express language of the codified portion of S.B. 80 does not convey whether
{28} We began by acknowledging that all statutes enjoy a strong presumption of constitutionality and that legislative intent is the paramount concern of a court when interpreting a statute. Loyd at ¶ 13. Applying the well-settled rule of statutory construction requiring a court to “first look at the words of the statute itself to determine legislative intent,” we concluded that “it [was] not clear from the statute itself whether it was intended to be substantive or procedural.” Id., quoting Carnes v. Kemp, 104 Ohio St.3d 629, 2004-Ohio-7107, 821 N.E.2d 180, ¶ 16. We resolved that lack of clarity by considering the statements expressed by the General Assembly in the uncodified language in connection with
{29} Similarly, in this case, the statements made by the General Assembly in the uncodified language of S.B. 80 compel the conclusion that although
{30} The uncodified language of S.B. 80 includes a “statement of findings and intent” made by the General Assembly. S.B. 80, Section 3, 150 Ohio Laws, Part V, at 8024. In its statement, the General Assembly asserted, “The current civil litigation system represents a challenge to the economy of the state of Ohio” and recognized that “a fair system of civil justice strikes an essential balance between the rights of those who have been legitimately harmed and the rights of those who have been unfairly sued.” Section 3(A)(1) and (2), id. The General Assembly further declared that “[r]eform to the punitive damages law in Ohio [was] urgently needed to restore balance, fairness, and predictability to the civil justice system.” Section 3(A)(4)(a), id. at 8025.
{31} The uncodified language of the statute also distinguishes noneconomic damages, which “are intended to compensate person for the person’s loss,” from punitive damages, which “are intended to punish a defendant for wrongful conduct.” Section 3(A)(6)(a), id. at 8027. Among its findings, the General Assembly explained:
(d) While pain and suffering awards are inherently subjective, it is believed that this inflation of noneconomic damages is partially due to the improper consideration of evidence of wrongdoing in assessing pain and suffering damages.
(e) Inflated damage awards create an improper resolution of civil justice claims. The increased and improper cost of litigation and resulting rise in insurance premiums is passed on to the general public through higher prices for products and services.
(f) * * * In cases in which punitive damages are requested, defendants should have the right to request bifurcation of a trial to ensure that evidence of misconduct is not inappropriately considered by the jury in its determination of liability and compensatory damages. As additional protection, trial and appellate courts should rigorously review pain and suffering awards to ensure that they properly serve compensatory purposes and are not excessive.
(Emphasis added.) Section 3(A)(6)(d) through (f), id. at 8028.
{32} These findings and statements by the General Assembly demonstrate its intent to create a substantive right to ensure that evidence of misconduct is not
{33} The cases cited by the dissent, however, merely underscore that when a statute and rule conflict, the statute will prevail in matters of substantive law and the rule will prevail in matters of procedural law. In none of those cases did we undertake a substantive-versus-procedural analysis, nor did any involve a statute where the divestiture of discretion created a right, as here. In addition, those cases actually bolster our analysis and our result because they recognize that it is appropriate to consider the operative effect of the statute or rule in question when determining whether the statute is substantive or procedural. In Alexander v. Buckeye Pipe Line Co., for example, we said that “the effect of
{34} Contrary to the unsupported contention of the dissent,
{35} Accordingly,
Conclusion
{36}
LUNDBERG STRATTON, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur.
O’CONNOR, C.J., concurs in judgment only.
PFEIFER and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., dissent.
Judgment reversed.
MCGEE BROWN, J., dissenting.
{38} The Modern Courts Amendment to the Ohio Constitution gives the Supreme Court of Ohio exclusive authority over standards for practice and procedure in Ohio courts.
{39} The statute before us,
{40} In the past, we have carefully guarded our rule-making authority against legislative attempts to influence courtroom practice and procedure. For example, we have overruled legislative attempts to undermine our rules with respect to the consolidation of claims, Dir. of Highways v. Kleines, 38 Ohio St.2d 317, 320, 313 N.E.2d 370 (1974) (holding that “the management of cases lies within the discretion of the court“); pleading requirements, Rockey v. 84 Lumber Co., 66 Ohio St.3d 221, 225, 611 N.E.2d 789 (1993) (concluding that
{41} Our precedent in this area is clear and well reasoned. We have followed the express language of the Modern Courts Amendment by invalidating statutes
{42} The majority largely sidesteps our precedent regarding the substantive/procedural dichotomy. Instead, it defers to the General Assembly’s purported intention that
{43} We look to legislative intent to clarify ambiguous statutory language, but this statute is not ambiguous. We should not resort to legislative intent to determine that a statute is constitutional simply because the General Assembly intended it to be so. Only the courts may rule on a statute’s constitutionality.
{44} To the extent that the majority undertakes an analysis of
{45} Moreover, the uncodified commentary on which the majority relies hardly marks the creation of a right. Am.Sub.S.B. No. 80, Section 3(A)(6)(f) suggests, “[D]efendants should have the right to request bifurcation of a trial to ensure that evidence of misconduct is not inappropriately considered by the jury * * *.” 150 Ohio Laws, Part V, 7915, 8028. But defendants, like plaintiffs, have long enjoyed that right under
{46} Bifurcation is a classic courtroom procedural issue. A motion for bifurcation involves a question of how best to manage the competing interests of efficiency and prejudice in the courtroom, and we have determined that judges are best situated to answer that question. See
{48} Like the statutes we previously invalidated in this context,
{49} The
{50}
PFEIFER, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.
The Dickson Firm, L.L.C., and Blake A. Dickson, for appellee.
Bonezzi, Switzer, Murphy, Polito & Hupp Co., L.P.A., Bret C. Perry, Stephen J. Hupp, and Donald J. Richardson, for appellants.
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, Alexandra T. Schimmer, Solicitor General, and Laura Eddleman Heim, Deputy Solicitor, urging reversal on behalf of amicus curiae state of Ohio.
Davis & Young and Richard M. Garner, urging reversal on behalf of amicus curiae Ohio Association of Civil Trial Attorneys.
Bricker & Eckler, L.L.P., Anne Marie Sferra, and Bridget Purdue Riddell, urging reversal on behalf of amici curiae Ohio Alliance for Civil Justice, Ohio Hospital Association, and Physician Insurers Association of America.
Law Offices of John C. Camillus, L.L.C., and John C. Camillus, urging affirmance on behalf of amicus curiae Ohio Association for Justice.