Wayt v. DHSC, L.L.C., 120718 OHSC, 2017-1548
| Opinion Judge | Fischer, J. |
| Party Name | Wayt, Appellee, v. DHSC, L.L.C., d.b.a. Affinity Medical Center, Appellant. |
| Attorney | B. Zimmerman Law and Brian L. Zimmerman; and Crabbe, Brown & James, L.L.P., and Andrew G. Douglas, for appellee. Hanna, Campbell & Powell, L.L.P., Douglas G. Leak, W. Bradford Longbrake, Frank G. Mazgaj, and Emily R. Yoder; and Howard & Howard Attorneys and Michael O. Fawaz, for appellant. Elfvin... |
| Judge Panel | Kennedy, French, and DeWine, JJ., concur. DeGenaro, J., concurs in judgment only. O'Connor, C.J., dissenting. O'Donnell, J., concurs in the foregoing opinion. |
| Case Date | December 07, 2018 |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Submitted August 1, 2018
Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Stark County, No. 2016CA215, 2017-Ohio-7734.
B. Zimmerman Law and Brian L. Zimmerman; and Crabbe, Brown & James, L.L.P., and Andrew G. Douglas, for appellee.
Hanna, Campbell & Powell, L.L.P., Douglas G. Leak, W. Bradford Longbrake, Frank G. Mazgaj, and Emily R. Yoder; and Howard & Howard Attorneys and Michael O. Fawaz, for appellant.
Elfvin, Klingshirn, Royer & Torch, L.L.C., and Christina Royer; and McCarthy, Lebit, Crystal & Liffman Co., L.P.A., and Colin R. Ray, urging affirmance for amicus curiae Ohio Employment Lawyers Association.
Cooper & Elliot, L.L.C., C. Benjamin Cooper, and Charles H. Cooper, urging affirmance for amicus curiae Ohio Association for Justice.
Fischer, J.
{¶ 1} Appellee, Ann Wayt, filed a civil complaint against appellant, DHSC, L.L.C., d.b.a. Affinity Medical Center ("Affinity Medical"), alleging, among other claims, defamation. The case proceeded to trial. The only claim submitted to the jury was for defamation. The jury found that Wayt had been defamed and awarded her $800, 000 in compensatory damages and $750, 000 in punitive damages.
{¶ 2} The only issue before this court is whether the cap on damages for noneconomic loss set forth in R.C. 2315.18(B)(2) applies to compensatory damages awarded for defamation. We hold that the statute unambiguously caps the noneconomic damages that can be recovered as a result of defamation, and we remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings.
I. BACKGROUND
{¶ 3} Wayt was a nurse who was employed at Affinity Medical. Affinity Medical terminated Wayt's employment after an investigation that followed an accusation that Wayt had neglected her duties and falsified a medical record.
{¶ 4} Following Wayt's dismissal, the head of nursing at Affinity Medical sent a complaint to the Ohio Board of Nursing that included an accusation that Wayt had engaged in patient neglect. Some additional documentation was sent to the board that detailed Wayt's alleged improper conduct.
{¶ 5} Following her termination, Wayt applied for multiple nursing positions. She had only two interviews and did not obtain a permanent nursing position.
{¶ 6} The National Nurses Organizing Committee, a union and professional organization for registered nurses, filed charges against Affinity Medical before the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB"), claiming that the hospital had refused to bargain with the union and that Wayt had been terminated because of her involvement with the union. After an administrative law judge issued a report favorable to the union, the NLRB successfully petitioned the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio for injunctive relief that included an order that Wayt be reinstated to her prior position at Affinity Medical. Calatrello ex rel. Natl. Labor Relations Bd. v. DHSC, L.L.C., N.D. Ohio No. 5:13 CV 1538, 2014 WL 296634 (Jan. 24, 2014). The court also ordered Affinity Medical to retract the report made to the Nursing Board. Wayt did return to her position, but an Affinity Medical employee allegedly stated, in front of several nurses, that the court order did not mean that Wayt deserved to regain her position or that she was a good nurse.
{¶ 7} Wayt filed a complaint in the Stark County Court of Common Pleas alleging that Affinity Medical and its employees had defamed her. At trial, the jury found that Wayt had been defamed and awarded her $800, 000 in compensatory damages and $750, 000 in punitive damages.
{¶ 8} Affinity Medical filed a posttrial motion requesting that the trial court apply the cap on noneconomic compensatory damages set forth in R.C. 2315.18(B)(2) and the cap on punitive damages set forth in R.C. 2315.21(D) to reduce the awards. The trial court ruled that the statutory caps on compensatory and punitive damages did not apply to injuries to reputation. The trial court also held that the punitive-damages cap is twice the amount of compensatory damages awarded, not twice the amount of compensatory damages as capped under R.C. 2315.18(B)(2).
{¶ 9} Affinity Medical filed an appeal and argued that the amount awarded in damages was in excess of the applicable caps on damages set forth in R.C. 2315.18(B)(2) and 2315.2(D). The appellate court adopted the reasoning of the trial court and overruled Affinity Medical's assignment of error relating to caps on damages. Affinity Medical then appealed to this court, presenting two propositions of law. We accepted jurisdiction over only one proposition, whether the cap in R.C. 2315.18 that applies to tort actions seeking noneconomic loss as a result of an alleged injury or loss to person or property also applies to defamation. See 152 Ohio St.3d 1420, 2018-Ohio-923, 93 N.E.3d 1002.
II. ANALYSIS
{¶ 10} Affinity Medical argues that under the plain and unambiguous language of R.C. 2315.18(B), compensatory damages awarded in a defamation action must be capped. Affinity Medical also argues that the caps on punitive damages set forth in R.C. 2315.21(D) apply and that the amount of punitive damages awarded to Wayt by the jury should be reduced accordingly.
{¶ 11} Like Affinity Medical, Wayt argues that the plain language of R.C. 2315.18 is controlling but asserts that the statutory language applies to injuries only to a person or property, not to a person's reputation. Wayt asserts that defamation is an injury to a person's reputation and is distinct from injuries to a person. She relies on Article I, Section 16 of the Ohio Constitution, which provides that courts shall be open to redress injuries to "land, goods, person, or reputation" to support her argument.
{¶ 12} Wayt further contends that R.C. 2315.18 does not cap the damages awarded for defamation because the statute applies only to negligent torts, not to intentional torts like defamation.
{¶ 13} Wayt also argues that the proposition of law presented in this case need not be answered because Affinity Medical failed to request a jury interrogatory that would have allowed it to show that the jury awarded noneconomic rather than economic damages. Wayt adds that the statute plainly applies only to noneconomic damages and that the trial court could find that the damages awarded were economic damages without an interrogatory that showed what kind of damages were awarded.
{¶ 14} Finally, Wayt argues that she was defamed on more than one occasion. Thus, argues Wayt, even if R.C. 2315.18(B)(2) does apply, the amount awarded should not be reduced and she should be awarded the statutory maximum for each instance of defamation.
A. Standard of Review
{¶ 15} The standard of review for questions of statutory interpretation is de novo. Ceccarelli v. Levin, 127 Ohio St.3d 231, 2010-Ohio-5681, 938 N.E.2d 342, ¶ 8. When a statute is plain and unambiguous, we apply the statute as written, Portage Cty. Bd. of Commrs. v. Akron, 109 Ohio St.3d 106, 2006-Ohio-954, 846 N.E.2d 478, ¶ 52, and no further interpretation is necessary, State ex rel Savarese v. Buckeye Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 74 Ohio St.3d 543, 545, 660 N.E.2d 463 (1996).
B. Plain Meaning of the Statute
{¶ 16} R.C. 2315.18(A)(7) provides:" 'Tort action' means a civil action for damages for injury or loss to person or property" R.C. 2315.18(B)(2) provides that the maximum noneconomic damages that can be awarded to a plaintiff in a tort action is, barring certain exceptions that do not apply here, $ 250, 000.
{¶ 17} Property "means real and personal property." R.C. 1.59(E). The term "property" as used in R.C. 2315.18(A)(7) does not include reputation, and neither party argues to the contrary.
{¶ 18} The key question in this case is, therefore, whether defamation, which is an injury to reputation, falls within the category of injury to a person. R.C. 1.59(C) defines person as "an individual, corporation, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, and association." This definition does not provide an answer to the question before us. We have held for 90 years, however, that defamation is an injury to a person. See Smith v. Buck, 119 Ohio St. 101, 162 N.E. 382 (1928), paragraph two of the syllabus. We cited this decision with approval as recently as 2008. See Nadra v. Mbah, 119 Ohio St.3d 305, 2008-Ohio-3918, 893 N.E.2d 829.
{¶ 19} In Buck, this court addressed whether "slander is a 'personal injury' by a 'wrongful act,' within the intent and meaning of the proviso to section 11819, General Code." Id. at 101. This court held that the term "personal injury," "as defined by lexicographers, jurists and text-writers, and by common acceptance," includes injuries to a person's reputation, id. at paragraph one of the syllabus, and we cited with approval several cases from other jurisdictions in which those courts decided that slander or libel is an injury to a person. See Tisdale v. Eubanks, 180 N.C. 153, 104 SE. 339 (1920) ("the security of one's reputation and good name [is] among the personal rights of the citizen"); Times Democrat Publishing Co. v. Mozee, 136 F. 761, 763 (5th Cir.1905) ("At common law, libel and slander were classified as injuries to the person, or personal injuries"); McDonald v. Brown, 23 R.I. 546, 51 A. 213, 214 (1902) (statute providing that bankruptcy discharges debts but not judgments for willful or malicious injuries to a person or property did not discharge debts resulting from judgments in libel). These three cases remain good law.
{¶ 20} The court in Buck held that barring a phrase or definition within the statute that would lead to a contrary conclusion, injuries resulting from slander are plainly...
To continue reading
Request your trial