McLeod v. Mt. Sinai Med. Ctr.
| Decision Date | 04 May 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 85574.,No. 85286.,No. 85605.,85286.,85574.,85605. |
| Citation | 166 Ohio App.3d 647,852 N.E.2d 1235,2006 Ohio 2206 |
| Parties | McLEOD, Grdn., Appellant and Cross-Appellee, v. MT. SINAI MEDICAL CENTER et al., Appellees and Cross-Appellants. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Jack Beam and Douglas J. Raymond, Lafayette, CO; Geoffrey N. Fieger and Jeremiah J. Kenney, Southfield, MI; Sandra J. Rosenthal; and Muth & Shapiro, P.C., and Andrew S. Muth, Ypsilanti, MI, for appellant and cross-appellee.
Reminger & Reminger Co., L.P.A., Marc W. Groedel, Marilena DiSilvio, Cleveland, and W. Bradford Longbrake, Akron; Tucker, Ellis & West, L.L.P., and Irene C. Keyse-Walker, Cleveland; Meckler, Bulger & Tilson, L.L.P., and Michael M. Marick, Chicago, IL; and Hammond, Sewards & Williams and Scott E. Williams, Columbus, for appellee and cross-appellant Mt. Sinai Hospital Medical Center.
Jones Day, Pearson N. Bownas, Mark Herrmann, and Mary Beth Young; and Sutter, O'Connell, Mannion & Farchione, Joseph A. Farchione, Thomas H. Terry III, John V. Jackson, and Edward Blakemore, for appellees and cross-appellants Ronald Jordan, M.D., and Northeast Ohio Neighborhood Health Services, Inc.
{¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant and cross-appellee, Mark A. McLeod ("plaintiff" or "McLeod"), guardian of the estate of Walter Hollins, initiates this appeal to reinstate the original jury verdict and award in this medical malpractice lawsuit. After a thorough review of the record and the arguments of the parties, we ultimately reverse the trial court's order granting a new trial and remand the matter for consideration of remittitur of damages and prejudgment interest.
{¶ 2} This medical malpractice action stems from the events surrounding the birth of Walter Hollins ("Hollins"). On January 29, 1987, Hollins was born via Caesarean section at the former Mt. Sinai Hospital in Cleveland. Hollins, an intra-uterine growth retarded ("IUGR") baby, was born with the lifelong debilitating conditions of cerebral palsy and severe retardation. At the time of Hollins's birth, a Caesarean section was ordered because of fetal distress. Once the procedure was ordered, it took approximately two hours to deliver baby Hollins. The record also indicates that Hollins experienced some degree of asphyxia at birth.
{¶ 3} In 1998, plaintiff filed suit alleging medically negligent prenatal and postnatal care resulting in Hollins's condition. The complaint was specifically brought against Dr. Ronald Jordan, the physician who performed the Caesarean section, and his employer, Northeast Ohio Neighborhood Health Services, Inc. The complaint also included codefendant Mt. Sinai Hospital, the facility where the Caesarean section took place. In addition, the complaint included a claim of spoliation of medical records.
{¶ 4} The case was originally assigned to the regular common pleas docket but was eventually reassigned to a visiting judge. A jury trial began on May 4, 2004, with causation of Hollins's infirmities at the core of the contested issues. While plaintiff maintained that Hollins's condition was a direct result of medical malpractice, the defense attributed causation to placental insufficiency throughout Hollins's development in utero and through no fault of medical treatment.
{¶ 5} On May 24, 2004, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff and entered an award of $30 million—$15 million in economic damages and $15 million in noneconomic damages.
{¶ 6} In response, the defense filed motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict ("JNOV"), for a new trial or, in the alternative, for remittitur. In August 2004, the trial court granted defendants' motion for a new trial. On September 8, 2004, plaintiff filed an affidavit of disqualification of the visiting judge, followed by a Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from order. The visiting judge subsequently recused himself.
{¶ 7} On September 20, 2004, a hearing was held before a newly assigned common pleas judge on plaintiff's Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief. Prior to a ruling, plaintiff filed an appeal challenging the granting of a new trial. Cross-appeals were also filed. This court remanded the matter for a ruling on the pending Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief. On November 19, 2004, the lower court granted plaintiff's motion for relief and ordered the jury verdict and award reinstated.
{¶ 8} Defendants subsequently filed notices of appeal from the granting of plaintiff's Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief. All three appeals have been consolidated and will be disposed of by this opinion.1
{¶ 9} There are two main issues in this appeal: (1) should the lower court have granted plaintiff's Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief, and, if not, (2) should the trial court's order for a new trial be upheld? The remaining issues to be addressed include (1) Mt. Sinai's cross-appeal of the trial court's denial of their motions for directed verdict and JNOV, (2) the directed verdict against plaintiff's claims of spoliation and/or punitive damages, and (3) plaintiff's motion for prejudgment interest. We will address each issue accordingly.
{¶ 10} Civ.R. 60(B) reads:
{¶ 11} "On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or his legal representative from a final judgment, order or proceeding for the following reasons: * * * (3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation or other misconduct of an adverse party; * * * or (5) any other reason justifying relief from the judgment."
{¶ 12} To prevail on a motion under Civ.R. 60(B), the movant must demonstrate that (1) the party has a meritorious defense or claim to present if relief is granted, (2) the party is entitled to relief under one of the grounds stated in Civ.R. 60(B)(1) through (5), and (3) the motion is made within a reasonable time, and, where the grounds of relief are Civ.R. 60(B)(1), (2) or (3), not more than one year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken. GTE Automatic Elec. v. ARC Industries (1976), 47 Ohio St.2d 146, 1 O.O.3d 86, 351 N.E.2d 113, paragraph two of the syllabus.
{¶ 13} In granting the Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief, the lower court articulated its fundamental disagreement with the trial court's granting of a new trial. The lower court argued that the trial court improperly substituted its opinion for the findings of the jury in ordering a new trial. Therefore, the lower court overruled the order for a new trial by granting plaintiff's Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief. Ordinarily "a motion for relief from judgment under Civ.R. 60(B) is discretionary with the trial court; and, in the absence of a clear showing of abuse of discretion, the trial court's decision should not be disturbed on appeal." Wiley v. Natl. Garages, Inc. (1984), 22 Ohio App.3d 57, 22 OBR 153, 488 N.E.2d 915.
{¶ 14} However, this court has further held that a Civ.R. 60(B) motion may not be used as a substitute for a direct appeal. Manigault v. Ford Motor Co. (1999), 134 Ohio App.3d 402, 731 N.E.2d 236, citing Doe v. Trumbull Cty. Children Servs. Bd. (1986), 28 Ohio St.3d 128, 28 OBR 225, 502 N.E.2d 605; Natl. Amusements, Inc. v. Springdale (1990), 53 Ohio St.3d 60, 63, 558 N.E.2d 1178; Justice v. Lutheran Social Servs. of Cent. Ohio (1992), 79 Ohio App.3d 439, 442, 607 N.E.2d 537. Anderson v. Garrick (1995), Cuyahoga App. No. 68244, 1995 WL 601096.
{¶ 15} Our review now becomes de novo: "Although the trial court's ruling on a Civ.R. 60(B) motion is usually subject to an abuse of discretion standard of review, we conclude that overruling a Civ. R. 60(B) motion for the reason that it is improperly used as a substitute for appeal presents an issue of law." Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Cunningham, Montgomery App. No. 20341, 2004-Ohio-6226, 2004 WL 2659177.
{¶ 16} We find plaintiff's Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief in this case to be an improper attempt at an appeal. A comparison of the arguments raised by plaintiff in opposition to the motion for a new trial and those made in support of the motion for 60(B) relief shows that they are nearly identical. This illustrates that a direct appeal was the appropriate forum to reassert plaintiff's contentions, rather than a motion for relief. Furthermore, the lower court's granting of Civ.R. 60(B) relief was based upon a determination that the order for a new trial was incorrect on the merits. The opinion and order granting Civ.R. 60(B) relief is completely void of any citation to extraordinary circumstances that would justify the granting of Civ.R. 60(B) relief. We, therefore, vacate the granting of plaintiff's Civ.R. 60(B) motion.
{¶ 17} With the lower court's order for relief vacated, we now turn to the trial court's order for a new trial, which stated:
{¶ 18} "Civil Rule 59(A) permits the granting of a new trial upon various grounds, including the following, which do apply in this case:
{¶ 19} "Irregularity in the proceedings * * * by which an aggrieved party was prevented from having a fair trial.
{¶ 20} "Misconduct of the jury or prevailing party.
{¶ 21} "Accident or surprise which ordinarily prudence could not have guarded against.
{¶ 22} "Excessive or inadequate damages, appearing to have been given under the influence of passion or prejudice.
{¶ 23} "Error of law occurring at the trial and brought to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wheatley v. Marietta Coll.
...destroyed some evidence, no evidence that defendant willfully destroyed evidence so as to disrupt plaintiff's case); McLeod v. Mt. Sinai Med. Ctr., 166 Ohio App.3d 647, 2006-Ohio-2206, 852 N.E.2d 1235, ¶ 55 (8th Dist.) aff'd in part, rev'd in part on other grounds sub nom. Harris v. Mt. Sin......
-
State v. Groves
... ... Dist Delaware No. 11CAC030025, 2012-Ohio-3699, ¶ 30; ... McLeod v. Mt. Sinai Med. Ctr., 166 Ohio App.3d 647, ... 2006-Ohio-2206, 852 ... ...
-
Prof'l Sols. Ins. Co. v. Novak L.L.P., 108839
...and deny a motion for new trial. Harris, 116 Ohio St.3d 139, 2007-Ohio-5587, 876 N.E.2d 1201, at ¶ 19, citing McLeod v. Mt. Sinai Med. Ctr., 166 Ohio App.3d 647, 2006-Ohio-2206, 852 N.E.2d 1235, ¶ 28 (8th Dist.), rev'd on other grounds, 116 Ohio St.3d 139, 2007-Ohio 5587, 876 N.E.2d 1201. T......
-
Jay v. Massachusetts Cas. Ins. Co., 2008 Ohio 846 (Ohio App. 2/27/2008), 2006CA00201.
...the verdict." Krauss v. Streamo, Stark App. No. 2001CA00341, 2002-Ohio-4715, paragraph 14; see also, McLeod v. Mt. Sinai Medical Center (2006), 166 Ohio App. 3d 647, 853 N.E.2d 1235, reversed on other grounds, 116 Ohio St.3d 139, 876 N.E.2d 1201. Neither the weight of the evidence nor the c......