Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

A group of city and county governments, Indian tribes, and other entities filed actions against opioid manufacturers, distributors, and pharmacies, alleging they misled medical professionals and the public, leading to widespread addiction. Two Ohio counties, Trumbull and Lake, claimed that national pharmaceutical chains, including Walgreens, CVS, and Walmart, contributed to the opioid epidemic by filling prescriptions without proper controls. They filed a common-law absolute public-nuisance claim seeking equitable relief.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio denied the pharmacies' motion to dismiss, which argued that the Ohio Product Liability Act (OPLA) abrogated the public-nuisance claims. The court based its decision on a prior ruling in a related case, concluding that the OPLA did not abrogate public-nuisance claims seeking non-compensatory damages. After a jury verdict in favor of the counties, the pharmacies' motion for judgment as a matter of law was also denied. The pharmacies appealed, and the Sixth Circuit certified a question to the Supreme Court of Ohio regarding the OPLA's scope.The Supreme Court of Ohio held that the OPLA abrogates all common-law public-nuisance claims arising from the sale of a product, including those seeking equitable relief. The court determined that the statutory definition of "product liability claim" includes public-nuisance claims related to the design, manufacture, supply, marketing, distribution, promotion, advertising, labeling, or sale of a product. The court rejected the argument that the OPLA only abrogates claims seeking compensatory damages or involving defective products. The court concluded that the counties' claims, based on the pharmacies' dispensing of opioids, fall within the scope of the OPLA and are therefore abrogated. View "In re Natl. Prescription Opiate Litigation" on Justia Law

A medical-malpractice action was filed by Kalvyn Stull and his family against Summa Health System and associated parties, alleging that improper medical treatment following a car accident caused severe brain damage to Kalvyn. During discovery, the plaintiffs requested the residency file of Dr. Mazen Elashi, a resident physician involved in the treatment. Summa Health System claimed the file was protected by the peer-review privilege under Ohio law, supported by an affidavit from Dr. Erika Laipply, which stated that the file was used exclusively for peer-review purposes.The trial court in Summit County held that Summa had not sufficiently demonstrated that the peer-review privilege applied, as the affidavit contained ambiguities and lacked specific details. The court granted the motion to compel the production of the residency file. Summa appealed, and the Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, agreeing that the affidavit was insufficient to establish the privilege due to its ambiguities and incomplete information.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and held that the presence of factual ambiguities in affidavit testimony does not alone determine whether the peer-review privilege applies. The court emphasized that the trial court has the authority to conduct further inquiry, including in camera review, to resolve the factual disputes and determine the applicability of the privilege. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Ninth District Court of Appeals and remanded the case to the trial court for an in camera review of the residency file and any other necessary factual inquiry to resolve the legal question of whether the file is privileged. View "Stull v. Summa Health System" on Justia Law

In this case, Claudia Kennedy, as the executor of Donald R. Gerres's estate, filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against Western Reserve Senior Care and Dr. Sataya Acharya, among others, alleging that substandard medical care led to Gerres's death in October 2013. Kennedy initially filed the lawsuit in September 2014, voluntarily dismissed it in January 2019, and refiled it within a year.The trial court denied the healthcare providers' motion for judgment on the pleadings, which argued that the four-year statute of repose for medical claims barred Kennedy's refiled action. However, after the Ohio Supreme Court's decision in Wilson v. Durrani, which held that the saving statute does not preserve claims refiled after the statute of repose expires, the healthcare providers sought summary judgment. The trial court denied this motion but later granted a directed verdict in favor of the healthcare providers after Kennedy's opening statements.Kennedy appealed to the Eleventh District Court of Appeals, arguing that R.C. 2305.15(A) tolled the statute of repose because Dr. Acharya had moved out of Ohio. The Eleventh District affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that applying the tolling statute to Dr. Acharya, who left Ohio for legitimate business purposes, violated the dormant Commerce Clause.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and held that R.C. 2305.15(A) does not violate the dormant Commerce Clause as applied to a physician who moved out of Ohio to practice medicine in another state. The court found that the tolling statute serves a legitimate local purpose and does not impose a burden on interstate commerce that is clearly excessive in relation to its benefits. The judgment of the Eleventh District Court of Appeals was reversed, and the case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. View "Kennedy v. W. Res. Senior Care" on Justia Law

The case involves a medical negligence claim brought by Janet Hild, the administrator of Scott Boldman's estate, against several medical professionals and entities, including Samaritan Health Partners and Good Samaritan Hospital. Boldman, who had multiple health issues, underwent an emergency appendectomy at Good Samaritan Hospital. Post-surgery, he became combative and removed his breathing tube, after which he soon died. Hild claimed that the anesthesia was improperly handled, causing Boldman's aggressive behavior and subsequent death. The hospital argued that Boldman self-extubated and suffered a cardiac arrest unrelated to the anesthesia.The case proceeded to a jury trial in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas. The jury found that Sandra Ward, the Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist, was negligent in her care of Boldman. However, only the six jurors who found negligence were allowed to vote on whether Ward's negligence proximately caused Boldman's death. They concluded it did not. Hild filed a motion for a new trial, arguing that all jurors should have been allowed to vote on proximate cause. The trial court denied the motion.The Second District Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision in part, holding that the trial court erred by not allowing all jurors to vote on proximate cause, and remanded the case for a new trial on specific issues. The hospital appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio.The Supreme Court of Ohio held that the same-juror rule applies in all negligence cases where the jury answers sequential interrogatories that separate the elements of negligence. This means the same three-fourths of jurors must concur on all elements for a valid verdict. The court reversed the Second District's decision to the extent it ordered a new trial and reinstated the jury's verdict in favor of the hospital. View "Hild v. Samaritan Health Partner" on Justia Law

The administrator of a deceased woman’s estate filed a complaint alleging medical malpractice and wrongful death against a doctor, the doctor’s employer, a hospital, and Medicare. The doctor and his employer included the affirmative defenses of insufficiency of process and insufficiency of service of process in their answer. Over two years later, they moved for summary judgment, arguing that the case had not commenced timely because the doctor had not been served with the complaint. The administrator opposed, claiming the doctor waived his defense by participating in the litigation. The trial court granted summary judgment, and the First District Court of Appeals affirmed.The administrator appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio, urging it to overrule its decision in Gliozzo v. Univ. Urologists of Cleveland, Inc., which held that active participation in litigation does not waive the defense of insufficiency of service of process if properly raised and preserved. The Supreme Court of Ohio declined to overrule Gliozzo, reaffirming that the defense is not waived by participation in litigation if it is properly raised and preserved. The court emphasized that the burden of perfecting service lies with the plaintiff and that the rules of civil procedure govern the conduct of all parties equally.The Supreme Court of Ohio held that Dr. Ahmad properly preserved his insufficiency-of-service-of-process defense and that the administrator never perfected service of the complaint on him. Consequently, the trial court correctly dismissed the claims against Dr. Ahmad and his employer. The judgment of the First District Court of Appeals was affirmed. View "Ackman v. Mercy Health W. Hosp., Inc." on Justia Law

Christopher Hildebrant, a real-estate developer, facilitated a property sale in 2011 and expected consulting fees from both the seller and the buyer. During the transaction, Hildebrant alleged that Thomas Weidman, a trustee on the Sycamore Township Board, demanded a kickback. To avoid paying, Hildebrant created a fictitious email account and sent himself an email portraying Weidman as demanding payments. This email was forwarded to another party but remained private until 2020, when Hildebrant showed it to other township officials during a separate transaction. Weidman learned of the email in November 2020 during an investigation and received a copy in January 2021.The Warren County Court of Common Pleas granted Hildebrant’s motion for summary judgment, ruling that Weidman’s defamation claim was time-barred by the statute of limitations, which began when the email was first sent in 2011. The court also ruled that Weidman’s claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) and false-light invasion of privacy were similarly time-barred as they were derivative of the defamation claim.The Twelfth District Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the discovery rule applied to defamation claims when the publication was secretive or inherently unknowable. The court ruled that Weidman’s claims were not time-barred because he could not have known about the defamatory email until it was disclosed to him in 2020.The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the appellate court’s decision, holding that the discovery rule applies to libel claims when the publication is secretive or inherently unknowable. The court also held that the discovery rule applies to derivative claims like IIED and false-light invasion of privacy when they are based on the same allegations as the libel claim. The case was remanded to the Warren County Court of Common Pleas for further proceedings. View "Weidman v. Hildebrandt" on Justia Law

Michael Berkheimer experienced severe medical issues after a chicken bone became lodged in his throat while eating a "boneless wing" at a restaurant. He sued the restaurant, its food supplier, and a chicken farm, alleging negligence, breach of warranty, and other claims. The trial court ruled in favor of the defendants, stating they were not negligent as a matter of law. Berkheimer appealed, arguing that the court focused on the wrong question by determining whether the bone was natural to the boneless wing.The Twelfth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision. The appellate court concluded that the presence of a bone in the boneless wing was something a reasonable consumer could have anticipated and guarded against. The court applied a blended analysis, considering both whether the bone was foreign to or natural to the food and whether a consumer could reasonably expect its presence.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and upheld the lower court's decision. The court reaffirmed the analysis from Allen v. Grafton, which blends the "foreign-natural" test and the "reasonable-expectation" test. The court concluded that there was no breach of duty because a reasonable consumer could have expected and guarded against the presence of a bone in the boneless wing. The court emphasized that the label "boneless wing" was a description of the cooking style, not a guarantee of the absence of bones. Therefore, the judgment of the Twelfth District Court of Appeals was affirmed. View "Berkheimer v. REKM, L.L.C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of Ohio dealt with a case involving the plaintiff, who was acting both individually and as the executor of an estate, and the defendants, which included a medical center and various medical professionals. However, the opinion provides very little information about the specific facts of the case or the legal issues at stake. The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the judgment of the Sixth District Court of Appeals, relying on the authority of a prior case, Everhart v. Coshocton Cty. Mem. Hosp. The case was then remanded back to the Court of Appeals to consider arguments that it had previously declined to address. The specific nature of these arguments, and the reasons for the Court of Appeals' initial refusal to consider them, are not provided in the opinion. As such, the precise holding of the Supreme Court of Ohio in this case cannot be determined from the available information. View "Davis v. Mercy St. Vincent Med. Ctr." on Justia Law

In this case, the Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the judgment of the First District Court of Appeals. The case involved a dispute between Ewing, in her capacity as executor of an estate and personal representative of the deceased's next of kin and beneficiaries, and UC Health along with other defendants. The court did not provide detailed facts or legal conclusions in its decision. Instead, it simply stated that it was reversing the judgment of the lower court based on the authority of a separate case, Everhart v. Coshocton Cty. Mem. Hosp. Since the court does not elaborate on the details of the case nor the reasons for its decision, the exact holding in this case isn't clear from the opinion provided. View "Ewing v. UC Health" on Justia Law

In this case from the Supreme Court of Ohio, the court considered whether a derivative claim for loss of parental consortium could proceed even when the primary medical negligence claim, on which it was based, was barred by the statute of repose. The appellants, Mr. and Mrs. McCarthy, had filed a medical negligence claim against Dr. Lee and associated medical practices, alleging negligent care in the treatment of Mrs. McCarthy's condition. The claim was dismissed due to the statute of repose. Subsequently, the McCarthys filed a separate claim on behalf of their three minor children for loss of consortium due to the treatment of Mrs. McCarthy's condition. The medical providers moved to dismiss the claim, arguing that it could not stand alone as it was a derivative claim of the previously dismissed medical claim. The trial court granted the motion, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment.Upon appeal, the Supreme Court of Ohio held that the children's derivative claim for loss of parental consortium could not exist when the principal claim on which it was based was extinguished by the statute of repose. The court explained that the statute of repose operates as a substantive bar to a claim, extinguishing both the remedy and the right. Therefore, when a principal claim is extinguished, no other claim derived from it can exist. The court affirmed the lower court's decision to dismiss the children's derivative claim for loss of parental consortium. View "McCarthy v. Lee" on Justia Law