Beair v. Mgmt. & Training Corp.

1

SCOTT D. BEAIR, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. MANAGEMENT & TRAINING CORP., DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.

No. 9-21-07

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Third District, Marion

November 22, 2021

Appeal from Marion County Common Pleas Court Trial Court No. 2019 CV 628

Adam Houser for Appellant.

Kenneth E. Smith for Appellee.

OPINION

WILLAMOWSKI, P.J.

{¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant Scott D. Beair ("Beair") appeals the judgment of the Marion County Court of Common Pleas, alleging that the trial court erred in granting the Defendant-Appellee Management & Training Corporation's ("MTC") motion for summary judgment. For the reasons set forth below, the judgment of the trial court is reversed.

Facts and Procedural History

{¶2} In December 2011, Beair had surgery on his back to "address bulging and/or herniated cervical discs * * *." Doc. 1. In January of 2012, Beair was incarcerated in the North Central Correctional Center ("NCCC"). Doc. 1, 19. At this time, MTC had a contract with Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction ("ODRC") to operate NCCC. Doc. 1, 19. In December of 2013, Beair had another surgical procedure performed on his back. Doc. 1, 19. Beair alleges that his back issues required ongoing care during the term of his incarceration. Doc. 1, 23. On December 18, 2014, Beair was released from NCCC. Doc. 1, 19.

{¶3} On December 30, 2014, Beair filed a complaint ("December 30, 2014 Complaint") with the Marion County Court of Common Pleas ("trial court") that named MTC; the ODRC; the Warden at NCCC; and five John Does as defendants. Doc. 31; 20, Ex. 1-A. Beair alleged that the defendants failed to ensure that he received proper medical care during his term of incarceration in NCCC. Doc. 20, Ex. 1-A. He raised a negligence claim; a negligence in hiring, training and supervising claim; a gross negligence claim; an Eighth Amendment claim; and a punitive damages claim.^[1] Doc. 20, Ex. 1-A.

{¶4} On June 22, 2015, this case was removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio ("Federal District Court"). Doc. 31; 20, Ex. 1-B. On July 5, 2015, Beair filed an amended complaint with the Federal District Court ("July 5, 2015 Amended Complaint") that named MTC; Management & Training Corporation Medical, LLC ("MTC Medical"); and five John Does as defendants. Doc. 20, Ex. 1-B. MTC Medical was "a subsidiary corporation of defendant MTC, and operate[d] the medical facility located at NCCC." Doc 20, Ex. 1-B. The five "John Does * * * [were] employees, staff, agents and/or medical personnel hired and/or employed by defendants MTC and [MTC] Medical * * *." Doc. 20, Ex. 1-B.

{¶5} In the July 5, 2015 Amended Complaint, Beair raised an Eighth Amendment claim; a Fourteenth Amendment claim; a negligence claim; and a claim for punitive damages. Doc. 20, Ex. 1-B. As part of his negligence claim, Beair alleged that "MTC, [MTC] Medical and [the John] Does fail[ed] to provide * * * timely, adequate medical care, treatment and services * * *." Doc. 20, Ex. 1-B. In response, MTC filed a motion to dismiss. Doc. 20, Ex. 1-C.

{¶6} On January 19, 2016, the Federal District Court issued an order ("January 19, 2016 Order") deciding MTC's motion to dismiss. Doc. 20, Ex. 1-C. The Federal District Court addressed two main arguments that MTC had asserted against Beair's negligence claims. Doc. 20, Ex. 1-C. MTC argued (1) that Beair had, in fact, raised a medical claim in this action but had failed to file an affidavit of merit as required by Ohio Civ.R. 10(D)(2); and (2) that Beair's allegations of negligence were conclusory. Doc. 20, Ex. 1-C.

{¶7} The Federal District Court determined that Beair's allegations did, in fact, include a medical claim. Doc. 20, Ex. 1-C. However, the Federal District Court found that Beair was not required to file an affidavit of merit pursuant to Ohio Civ.R. 10(D)(2) in federal court. Doc. 20, Ex. 1-C. The Federal District Court then found that MTC's "argument that Beair's negligence claim is conclusory lacks merit." Doc. 20, Ex. 1-C. The Federal District Court dismissed the Eighth Amendment claim, the Fourteenth Amendment claim, and the punitive damages claim.^[2] Doc. 31; 20, Ex. 1-C. However, the trial court denied MTC's motion to dismiss as to the negligence claim. Doc. 20, Ex. 1-C.

{¶8} On October 2, 2018, Beair voluntarily dismissed the remaining claims pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(A)(1)(a). Doc. 20, 31. On October 1, 2019, Beair filed a complaint ("October 1, 2019 Complaint") against MTC with the Marion County Court of Common Pleas. Doc. 1. Beair raised claims of negligence; gross negligence; and negligence in hiring, training, and supervising. Doc. 1. On November 20, 2019, MTC filed a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss. Doc. 4. On February 14, 2020, the trial court granted MTC's motion to dismiss. Doc. 12.

{¶9} Beair appealed the trial court's decision to grant MTC's motion to dismiss. Doc. 14. On July 27, 2020, this Court, in an accelerated opinion, reversed the trial court's decision to grant MTC's motion to dismiss. Doc. 16. We concluded that, "at this stage of the proceedings it is too early to state, merely based on the face of the complaint, that there is no set of facts under which Beair could recover." (Emphasis sic.) Doc. 16. We then remanded this case to the trial court. Doc. 16.

{¶10} On November 4, 2020, MTC filed a motion for summary judgment. Doc. 20. MTC argued that the negligence claims in Beair's October 1, 2019 Complaint were, in fact, medical claims. Doc. 20. MTC argued these medical claims should be dismissed because Beair failed to file an affidavit of merit with these medical claims in compliance with Ohio Civ.R. 10(D)(2). Doc. 20.

{¶11} Further, MTC pointed to the fact that the Federal District Court had determined, in its January 19, 2016 Order, that Beair had raised a medical claim in his July 5, 2015 Amended Complaint. Doc. 20. On this basis, MTC then argued that the issue of whether Beair was raising negligence claims or medical claims had been previously litigated and that Beair was, therefore, precluded from "argu[ing] that his negligence claims are not true medical claims * * *." Doc. 20.

{¶12} On February 3, 2021, the trial court issued its judgment entry. Doc. 31. The trial court found that the issue of whether Beair's negligence claim was, in fact, a medical claim had been litigated by the Federal District Court and that the doctrine of res judicata was, therefore, applicable. Doc. 31. The trial court then determined that, notwithstanding the applicability of res judicata in this case, Beair's negligence claim "would still fit the definition of a medical claim on the facts." Doc. 31.

{¶13} On the basis of these conclusions, the trial court determined that Beair (1) had failed to file an affidavit of merit as required by Ohio Civ.R. 10(D)(2); and (2) that "all claims" raised by Beair in his October 1, 2019 Complaint were barred by the statute of repose for medical claims. Doc. 31. The trial court granted MTC's motion for summary judgment and dismissed all of Beair's claims. Doc. 31.

{¶14} Beair filed his notice of appeal on March 3, 2021. On appeal, he raises the following four assignments of error:

First Assignment of Error

The trial court decision violated appellant's due process rights when it misinterpreted the federal court order regarding res judicata.

Second Assignment of Error

The trial court decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence when it misconstrued appellant's negligence claim as a medical malpractice claim instead of a non-medical negligence claim.

Third Assignment of Error

The trial court decision misconstrued the inferences of appellant's complaint and the federal court decision and is against the manifest weight of the evidence in violation of Ohio Civil Rule 56.

Fourth Assignment of Error

The trial court decision relying on the statute of limitations misinterpreted Ohio law and violated appellant's due process rights when it applied the statu[t]e of limitations to a timely refiled complaint.

Since Beair's four assignments of error ultimately challenge the trial court's decision to grant summary judgment to MTC, we will begin by setting forth the general legal standard for summary judgment.

Legal Standard for Summary Judgment

{¶15} "Appellate courts consider a summary judgment order under a de novo standard of review." Schmidt Machine Company v. Swetland, 3d Dist. Wyandot No. 16-20-07 2021-Ohio-1236, ¶ 23, citing James B. Nutter & Co. v. Estate of Neifer, 3d Dist. Hancock No. 5-16-20, 2016-Ohio-7641, ¶ 5. According to the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure,

[s]ummary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, written admissions, affidavits, transcripts of evidence, and written stipulations of fact, if any, timely filed in the action, show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law * * *. A summary judgment shall not be rendered unless it appears from the evidence or stipulation, and only from the evidence or stipulation, that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion and that conclusion is adverse to the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made, that party being entitled to have the evidence or stipulation construed most strongly in the party's favor.

Civ.R. 56(C). Thus, summary judgment is to be granted

only when it is clear '(1) that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact; (2) that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; and (3) that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion, and that conclusion is adverse to the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made, who is entitled to have the evidence construed most strongly

...