Buchman v. Wayne Trace Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn.
| Decision Date | 23 August 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 94-412,94-412 |
| Citation | 73 Ohio St.3d 260,652 N.E.2d 952 |
| Parties | , 101 Ed. Law Rep. 1089 BUCHMAN, Appellant and Cross-Appellee, et al., v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the WAYNE TRACE LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellee and Cross-Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
1. R.C. 2744.05(B) is constitutional.
2. Social Security and Medicare benefits are the type of collateral source benefits contemplated by R.C. 2744.05(B).
3. Pursuant to R.C. 2744.05(B), future collateral benefits, to the extent they can be determined with a reasonable degree of certainty, are deductible from the jury's verdict against a political subdivision.
4. Under R.C. 2744.05(B), a collateral benefit is deductible only to the extent that the loss for which it compensates is actually included in the jury's award.
5. It is the political subdivision's burden to prove the extent to which it is entitled to an offset under R.C. 2744.05(B).
6. A political subdivision has a legal right to discover collateral benefits at any time during the pendency of an action against it, irrespective of the
issue of admissibility.
On September 1, 1989, appellant and cross-appellee, Donald A. Buchman, was driving his automobile south on State Route 127 in Paulding County. His wife Johanna and his two sons, Adam and Paul, were passengers in the car. At the same time, a school bus, empty of passengers, owned by appellee and cross-appellant, Board of Education of the Wayne Trace Local School District ("Wayne Trace"), was stopped at a stop sign controlling westbound traffic on County Road 60 where it intersects with State Route 127. As the Buchmans' vehicle approached the intersection, the school bus proceeded across State Route 127 and into the path of their vehicle. As a result of the collision, Donald suffered a C5-6 fracture, dislocation and a complete transection of his spinal cord, and was rendered a permanent level C4 quadriplegic.
On November 20, 1989, the Buchmans filed a complaint against Wayne Trace in the Paulding County Court of Common Pleas. Prior to trial, the claims for the personal injuries of Johanna, Adam and Paul were settled, leaving for trial only a claim for personal injuries to Donald and Johanna's claim for loss of consortium. 1
The case proceeded to a two-and-one-half-week jury trial on July 20, 1992. The Buchmans proposed twenty-three jury interrogatories, fifteen of which itemized damages suffered by Donald. The latter fifteen interrogatories would have required the jury to apportion Donald's damages between past and future losses in various categories, including medical bills, home care expenses, home supplies and medication expenses, lost wages/lost earning capacity, loss of household services, and equipment costs. Included in these interrogatories were three proposed interrogatories which sought a single sum for Donald's past and future pain and suffering, home modifications and college expenses, respectively.
The interrogatories proposed by Wayne Trace concerning Donald's damages sought a total monetary figure representing the amount of damages which would fully and fairly compensate Donald, categorized only according to economic and noneconomic damages. It was Wayne Trace's position that "[t]here should be no further breakdown other than that from a total amount."
The trial court rejected the Buchmans' proposed interrogatories with respect to Donald's damages, on the basis that "[t]o break those down into individual elements * * * as the Plaintiffs are requesting * * * is not necessary * * * [and] is really [not] a determinative issue as [Civ.R.] 49 envisions." Instead, the trial court submitted its own interrogatories categorizing Donald's damages according to past economic losses, future economic losses, and noneconomic damages, which the court believed provided the breakdown necessary for the post-verdict hearing to reduce the verdict by the amount of benefits received from collateral sources pursuant to R.C. 2744.05(B).
The jury found Wayne Trace to be one-hundred-percent negligent, awarded $5,082,482 to Donald, and provided the following relevant answers to the interrogatories submitted:
"$50,000.00" U"
On August 21, 1992, the trial court held a post-verdict hearing to determine the appropriate collateral source deductions to be made under R.C. 2744.05(B). Despite repeated expressions of trepidation over its ability to apply the statute to offset future collateral benefits, the trial court nevertheless settled on the following deductions from Donald's award:
"Undisputed collateral benefits 62,887.82
"Medicare payment of future medical (non-hospital) expenses 18,077.93
"Medicare payment of future hospitalization expenses 1,296,945.42
"Social Security disability benefits 281,324.00
--------------
Total $1,659,235.17"
----------
Accordingly, the trial court entered judgment in favor of Donald in the amount of $3,423,246.83.
The court of appeals reversed, finding many of the trial court's calculations speculative. In addition, the court of appeals found that "the interrogatories submitted to the jury were inadequate to permit determination of the specific losses for which the jury awarded compensation, thus compelling the trial court to speculate when calculating collateral benefit deductions." The court of appeals also held that Social Security payments to Donald's children were not in any event deductible benefits pursuant to R.C. 2744.05(B). The court of appeals, however, did not perform any calculations of its own or order that speculative deductions be added back into the verdict. Instead, it remanded the cause "for retrial to determine damages of each category [of loss]."
This cause is now before the court upon the allowance of a motion and cross-motion to certify the record.
Gretick, Bish, Lowe & Roth and Craig L. Roth, Bryan, for appellant and cross-appellee.
Clemens, Korhn & Liming, John M. Liming and Stephen F. Korhn, Defiance, for appellee and cross-appellant.
Mark W. Ruf, Akron, urging reversal for amicus curiae, Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers.
Means, Bichimer, Burkholder & Baker Co., L.P.A., and Kimball H. Carey, Columbus, urging affirmance for amicus curiae, Ohio School Boards Ass'n.
Malcolm C. Douglas and John E. Gotherman, Cleveland, urging affirmance for amici curiae, Ohio Mun. League, Ohio Mun. League Joint Self-Insurance Pool and County Com'rs Ass'n of Ohio.
Except for a single proposition of law raised by the cross-appeal concerning the use of a party-opponent's videotaped deposition, these appeals relate solely to the validity, construction, and application of R.C. 2744.05(B). The issues raised thereby can be grouped under two broad categories: one involving the constitutionality of R.C. 2744.05(B), and the other involving its operability. Although the constitutionality of R.C. 2744.05(B) is challenged under several provisions of the Ohio Constitution, particularly Sections 2, 5 and 16, Article I, the common basis for the challenge is that the statute unconstitutionally provides for the deduction of collateral benefits irrespective of whether such benefits are actually duplicated in the jury's verdict.
The issues concerning the operability of R.C. 2744.05(B) are: (1) whether Social Security and/or Medicare benefits are deductible; (2) whether and under what circumstances future benefits are deductible; (3) whether collateral benefits may be deducted irrespective of whether such benefits are actually duplicated in the jury's verdict; and (4) several related procedural issues.
I
Collateral Benefit Deductions under R.C. 2744.05(B)
Social Security and Medicare
R.C. 2744.05(B) provides in pertinent part that:
In Vogel v. Wells (1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 91, 566 N.E.2d 154, we defined a "benefit" as " '[f]inancial assistance received in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nevins v. Ohio Dept. of Transp.
...only to the extent that the loss that it collaterally compensates is included in the award. Buchman v. Wayne Trace Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn. (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 260, 652 N.E.2d 952. A deductible benefit must be matched to the award for which setoff is sought. Van Der Veer v. Ohio Dep......
-
In re Elder-Beerman Stores Corp., Bankruptcy No. 95-33643
...hybrid calculations by accepting parts of each expert's testimony or other testimony." Buchman v. Wayne Trace Local School Dist. Bd. of Educ., 73 Ohio St.3d 260, 652 N.E.2d 952, 966 (1995); see also Falls Steel Tube & Mfg. Co. v. Trumark, Inc., 73 F.3d 361, 1995 WL 750541, at *3 (6th Cir. D......
-
State v. Michael B. Buhrman
... ... N.E.2d 1232, 1240; Buchman v. Wayne Trace Local School ... Dist. Bd. f Edn. (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 260, 271, 652 ... ...
-
McCrone v. Bank One Corp.
...the method or means by which the state has chosen to advance that interest is rational. See Buchman v. Wayne Trace Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn. (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 260, 267, 652 N.E.2d 952. A statute will not be held to violate the Equal Protection Clause, and this court will not invali......