Ohio Law

News and Announcements from the Supreme Court of Ohio and Other Governmental Entities Within the Buckeye State.

Friday, March 03, 2006

Supreme Court of Ohio Releases "Wrongful Birth" Decision

Opinion can be found here.

Here is the syllabus:

SYLLABUS OF THE COURT
Parents of an unhealthy child born following negligent genetic counseling
or a negligent failure to diagnose a fetal defect or disease may bring a
medical malpractice action for those costs arising from the pregnancy
and birth of the child.

...and here is the conclusion and judgment:

IV. Conclusion
{¶ 31} For the foregoing reasons, we hold that parents of an unhealthy
child born following negligent genetic counseling or negligent failure to
diagnose a fetal defect or disease may bring a medical malpractice action
for those costs arising from the pregnancy and birth of the child. As the
Schirmers have voluntarily dismissed the claim for such damages, they
cannot recover for those injuries. The trial court properly dismissed the
Schirmers’ claims for consequential economic and noneconomic damages.

V. Judgment
{¶ 32} Accordingly, our judgment is as follows:
{¶ 33} 1. Parents of an unhealthy child born following negligent
genetic counseling or a negligent failure to diagnose a fetal defect or
disease may bring a medical malpractice action for those costs arising
from the pregnancy and birth of the child. As the Schirmers have
voluntarily dismissed the claim for such damages, they cannot recover
for those injuries.
{¶ 34} 2. That part of the judgment of the court of appeals holding
that the consequential, economic costs of raising the Schirmers' disabled
child over and above ordinary child-rearing expenses may be recoverable
is reversed.
{¶ 35} 3. That part of the judgment of the court of appeals holding
that the Schirmers may not recover noneconomic damages is affirmed.
{¶ 36} 4. That part of the judgment of the court of appeals remanding
the cause for further proceedings is reversed, and the judgment of the
trial court dismissing the cause is reinstated.

Justice O'Connor wrote the opinion, and here's how the rest of court decided:

MOYER, C.J., concurs in the syllabus and in all parts of the judgment.
RESNICK and PFEIFER, JJ., concur in the syllabus and part one of the
judgment and the portion of the opinion relating thereto, and dissent as
to parts two, three, and four of the judgment.
LUNDBERG STRATTON, O'DONNELL and LANZINGER, JJ., concur
in parts two, three, and four of the judgment, but for reasons different
from those stated in the opinion, and dissent in all other respects.

Later

NOTE: here is the appellate court case from which the appeal to the Supreme Court of Ohio was made.

Wednesday, March 01, 2006

"There's Something Really Wrong Here"

I recently watched the Al Pacino lawyer flick ...and Justice for All and the above quote from Pacino's opening argument at the end of the movie came to mind when I read this story concerning the early release of convicted murderers and rapists by the state of Ohio. If after reading the story you are interested in the genesis of the "Ankrom list," check this page out at the Ohio Public Defender web site.

Later

3/1/2006 - Supreme Court of Ohio Decisions

Wednesday, March 1, 2006

2004-0001. Academy of Medicine of Cincinnati v. Aetna Health, Inc., 2006-Ohio-657.
Hamilton App. Nos. C-030109, C-030110, and C-030111, 2003-Ohio-6194. Judgment affirmed.
Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Pfeifer, O'Connor and O'Donnell, JJ., concur.
Lundberg Stratton and Lanzinger, JJ., dissent.
Opinion: http://www.supremecourtofohio.gov/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-Ohio-657.pdf
Summary: State Courts May Use Federal Standard to Determine When Arbitration Clauses Apply

2004-1024. State v. Hancock, 2006-Ohio-658.
Warren App. Nos. CA2001-12-115, CA2001-12-116, and CA2002-01-004, 2003-Ohio-1616. Judgment affirmed.
Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O'Connor, O'Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.
Opinion: http://www.supremecourtofohio.gov/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-Ohio-658.pdf

2004-1896. State ex rel. Apcompower v. Indus. Comm., 2006-Ohio-659.
Franklin App. No. 03AP-718, 2004-Ohio-5257. Judgment affirmed.
Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O'Connor, O'Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.
Opinion: http://www.supremecourtofohio.gov/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-Ohio-659.pdf

2005-0156. State ex rel. Dixon v. Airborne Express, Inc., 2006-Ohio-660.
Franklin App. No. 04AP-155, 2004-Ohio-7195. Judgment affirmed.
Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O'Connor, O'Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.
Opinion: http://www.supremecourtofohio.gov/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-Ohio-660.pdf

2005-1120. State ex rel. Stewart v. State Emp. Relations Bd., 2006-Ohio-661.
Montgomery App. No. CA 20329. Judgment affirmed.
Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Lundberg Stratton, O'Connor, O'Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.
Pfeifer, J., concurs in judgment only.
Opinion: http://www.supremecourtofohio.gov/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-Ohio-661.pdf

2005-1142. State ex rel. Montgomery Cty. Pub. Defender v. Siroki, 2006-Ohio-662.
Montgomery App. No. 20433. Judgment affirmed.
Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O'Connor, O'Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.
Opinion: http://www.supremecourtofohio.gov/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-Ohio-662.pdf
Summary: Clerk of Courts May Delay Compliance With Public Records Request to Redact Social Security Numbers

2005-1687. Crase v. Bradshaw, 2006-Ohio-663.
Richland App. No. 05-CA-71. Appeal dismissed as moot.
Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O'Connor, O'Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.
Opinion: http://www.supremecourtofohio.gov/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-Ohio-663.pdf

Tuesday, February 28, 2006

2/28/2006 - Supreme Court of Ohio Case Announcements

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

2004-0586. State v. Drummond.
Mahoning C.P. No. 03CR358. This cause is pending before the court
as a death penalty appeal from the Court of Common Pleas for Mahoning
County. Upon consideration of appellee's motion to participate in
oral argument,
IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motion is denied.

2005-2119. State v. Gibson.
Ross App. No. 04CA2805, 2005-Ohio-5273. This cause is pending
before the court as a discretionary appeal. On November 10, 2005,
appellant filed a notice that a motion to certify a conflict was pending
in the court of appeals and, pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. IV(4)(A), this court
stayed consideration of the jurisdictional memoranda filed in this appeal.
Whereas appellant has neither notified this court that the court of
appeals determined that a conflict does not exist as provided by
S.Ct.Prac.R. IV(4)(B) nor filed a copy of the court of appeals' order
certifying the existence of a conflict as provided by S.Ct.Prac.R. IV(4)(C),
IT IS ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, that appellant show cause within
fourteen days of the date of this entry why this court should not proceed to
consider the jurisdictional memoranda in this appeal pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R.
III(6).

2005-2122. State v. Crace.
Ross App. No. 04CA2801, 2005-Ohio-5274. This cause is pending
before the court as a discretionary appeal. On November 10, 2005,
appellant filed a notice that a motion to certify a conflict was pending
in the court of appeals and, pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. IV(4)(A), this
court stayed consideration of the jurisdictional memoranda filed in
this appeal. Whereas appellant has neither notified this court
that the court of appeals determined that a conflict does not exist as
provided by S.Ct.Prac.R. IV(4)(B) nor filed a copy of the court of
appeals' order certifying the existence of a conflict as provided by
S.Ct.Prac.R. IV(4)(C),
IT IS ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, that appellant show cause
within fourteen days of the date of this entry why this court should
not proceed to consider the jurisdictional memoranda in this appeal
pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. III(6).

2005-2125. White v. Summit Cty.
Summit App. No. 22398, 2005-Ohio-5192. This cause is pending
before the court as a discretionary appeal. On November 10, 2005,
appellant filed a notice that a motion to certify a conflict was pending
in the court of appeals and, pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. IV(4)(A), this
court stayed consideration of the jurisdictional memoranda filed in
this appeal. Whereas appellant has neither notified this court
that the court of appeals determined that a conflict does not exist as
provided by S.Ct.Prac.R. IV(4)(B) nor filed a copy of the court of
appeals' order certifying the existence of a conflict as provided by
S.Ct.Prac.R. IV(4)(C),
IT IS ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, that appellant show cause
within fourteen days of the date of this entry why this court should
not proceed to consider the jurisdictional memoranda in this appeal
pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. III(6).

2006-0328. State ex rel. Kuhar v. Medina Cty. Bd. of Elections.
In Mandamus. This cause originated in this court on the filing of a
complaint for a writ of mandamus involving an expedited election
matter. Upon consideration of the motion of Ohio Attorney General
im Petro for leave to intervene,
IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motion is granted.
Lundberg Stratton, J., not participating.

MEDIATION REFERRALS

The following case has been referred to mediation pursuant to
S.Ct.Prac.R. XIV(6):
2006-0311. State ex rel. Bailey v. Indus. Comm.
Franklin App. No. 05AP-316.

Later

Monday, February 27, 2006

Supreme Court of Ohio Launches Redesigned Web Site

The Supreme Court of Ohio today launched a comprehensive redesign of its web site. The redesigned site is part of an ongoing effort by the Court to use information technology to increase public trust and confidence in the judiciary. The redesign features improved site navigation and a new Google-driven search page. Some of the more recent additions to the Court's site continue on the new site: archived and streaming video of oral arguments, case docket information, attorney look-ups, and information on the recent opening of the new Visitor Education Center.

Later

2/27/2006 - Supreme Court of Ohio Case Decisions and Administrative Actions

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

2004-1171 and 2004-1267. State v. Mathis, 2006-Ohio-855.
Cuyahoga App. No. 83311, 2004-Ohio-2982, and Cuyahoga App.
No. 82278, 2004-Ohio-2971. Judgments affirmed and causes
remanded to the trial court.
Moyer, C.J., Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O'Connor, O'Donnell and
Lanzinger, JJ., concur.
Resnick, J., concurs in paragraph three of the syllabus and in judgment.

2004-1568, 2004-1771, 2005-0735, and 2005-2156. State v. Foster,
2006-Ohio-856. Licking App. No. 03CA95, 2004-Ohio-4209,
Cuyahoga App. No. 83720, 2004- Ohio-4485, Lake App. No.
2003-L-110, 2005-Ohio-1107, and Ottawa App. No. OT-03-016,
2005-Ohio-5257. Judgment reversed in No. 2004-1568 and cause
remanded to the trial court. Judgment affirmed in No. 2004-1771
and cause remanded to the trial court. Judgment reversed in
No. 2005-0735 and cause remanded to the trial court. Judgment
affirmed in No. 2005-2156. Moyer, C.J., Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton,
O'Connor, O'Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.
Resnick, J., concurs in paragraph seven of the syllabus and in judgment.

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

2003-1572. State ex rel. Howard v. Indus. Comm.
Franklin App. No. 97AP-860. This cause came on for further
consideration of appellant's motion for leave to file a motion for relief
from this court's prior judgments and motion for leave to file a motion
for sanctions. Upon consideration thereof,
IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motions are denied.

2005-1432. In re Guardianship of Schneider.
Medina App. No. 05CA0050-M. This cause came on for further
consideration of appellant's motions to vacate entries issued by the court
on January 25 and February 13, 2006, and motions for leave to hear all
matters in this case en banc. Upon consideration thereof,
IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motions are denied.

2005-1652. In re Guardianship of Schneider.
Medina App. No. 05CA0050-M. This cause came on for further
consideration of appellant's motions to vacate entries issued by this
court on February 8 and February 13, 2006, and motions for leave
to hear all matters in this case en banc. Upon consideration thereof,
IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motions are denied.

2005-2034. State v. Weber.
Hamilton App. No. C-040820, 2005-Ohio-4854. This cause is pending
before the court as a discretionary appeal and claimed appeal of right.
On October 31, 2005, appellant filed a notice that a motion to certify a
conflict was pending in the court of appeals and, pursuant to
S.Ct.Prac.R. IV(4)(A), this court stayed consideration of the jurisdictional
memoranda filed in this appeal. Whereas appellant has neither notified
this court that the court of appeals determined that a conflict does not
exist as provided by S.Ct.Prac.R. IV(4)(B) nor filed a copy of the court
of appeals' order certifying the existence of a conflict as provided by
S.Ct.Prac.R. IV(4)(C), IT IS ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, that
appellant show cause within 14 days from the date of this entry why
this court should not proceed to consider the jurisdictional memoranda
in this appeal pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. III(6).

2005-2106. State v. Sullivan-Griggs.
Hamilton App. No. C-040853. This cause is pending before the court
as a discretionary appeal and claimed appeal of right. On
November 8, 2005, appellant filed a notice that a motion to certify a
conflict was pending in the court of appeals and, pursuant to
S.Ct.Prac.R. IV(4)(A), this court stayed consideration of the
jurisdictional memoranda filed in this appeal. Whereas appellant
has neither notified this court that the court of appeals determined
that a conflict does not exist as provided by S.Ct.Prac.R. IV(4)(B)
nor filed a copy of the court of appeals' order certifying the existence
of a conflict as provided by S.Ct.Prac.R. IV(4)(C),
IT IS ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, that appellant show cause
within 14 days from the date of this entry why this court should not
proceed to consider the jurisdictional memoranda in this appeal
pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. III(6).

2006-0328. State ex rel. Kuhar v. Medina Cty. Bd. of Elections.
In Mandamus. This cause originated in this court on the filing of a
complaint for a writ of mandamus involving an expedited election
matter. Upon consideration of relator's motion to file a reduced number
of copies of evidence, IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motion is
granted, and the parties shall file an original plus two copies of the evidence.

2006-0378. State ex rel. McCray v. West.
Hamilton App. No. C-050955. This cause was filed as a discretionary
appeal and claimed appeal of right. Upon consideration of appellant's
jurisdictional memorandum, it is determined by the court that this cause
originated in the court of appeals and, therefore, should proceed as an
appeal of right pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. II(1)(A)(1).
IT IS ORDERED by the court that the Clerk shall issue an order for the
transmittal of the record from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County,
and the parties shall brief this case in accordance with S.Ct.Prac.R. VI.

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

2006-0007. Smith v. Leis.
Hamilton App. No. C-050857, 2005-Ohio-6090 and 2006-Ohio-450.
This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Court of Appeals
for Hamilton County. It appears from the records of this court that appellant
has not filed a merit brief, due February 21, 2006, in compliance with
the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court and therefore has failed to
prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence. Upon consideration
thereof,
IT IS ORDERED by the court that this cause is dismissed sua sponte.

MEDIATION REFERRALS

The following case has been referred to mediation pursuant to
S.Ct.Prac.R. XIV(6):
2006-0363. Bd. of Edn. of Kettering City Schools v. Montgomery
Cty. Bd. of Revision.
Board of Tax Appeals, No. 2004-A-1209.

Later

Another Sentencing Case Decided by the Supreme Court of Ohio

In another decision handed down today, the court's syllabus stated,
"When findings under R.C. 2929.13(D) or 2929.20(H) are missing
from the appellate record, the appellate court shall remand the case
to the sentencing court to state on the record the required findings
pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(1), after which the appellate court shall
either affirm or modify the sentence, or vacate the sentence and
remand the case for a hearing de novo if the sentence is contrary to
law. (R.C. 2953.08(G) and 2929.19, construed.)

Later

Supreme Court Ohio Finds Various Sections of Ohio's Felony Sentencing Law Unconstitutional

The first part of the Court's syllabus from the opinion states:

"Because R.C. 2929.14(B) and (C) and 2929.19(B)(2) require judicial
factfinding before imposition of a sentence greater than the maximum
term authorized by a jury verdict or admission of the defendant, they are
unconstitutional."

They then went on state: "R.C. 2929.14(B) and (C) and 2929.19(B)(2)
are capable of being severed.
After the severance, judicial factfinding is not required before a prison
term can be imposed within the basic ranges of R.C. 2929.14(A) based
upon a jury verdict or admission of the defendant."

Going further, the court held "Because R.C. 2929.14(E)(4) and 2929.41(A)
require judicial finding of facts not proven to a jury beyond a reasonable
doubt or admitted by the defendant before the imposition of consecutive
sentences, they are unconstitutional...R.C. 2929.14(E)(4) and 2929.41(A) are
capable of being severed. After the severance, judicial factfinding is not
required before imposition of consecutive prison terms."

And yet again, "Because the specifications contained in
R.C. 2929.14(D)(2)(b) and (D)(3)(b) require judicial factfinding
before repeat violent offender and major drug offender penalty
enhancements are imposed, they are unconstitutional ... R.C. 2929.14(D)(2)(b)
and (D)(3)(b) are capable of being severed. After the severance,
judicial factfinding is not required before imposition of additional
penalties for repeat violent offender and major drug offender specifications."

The last part of the syllabus states "Trial courts have full discretion to
impose a prison sentence within the statutory range and are no
longer required to make findings or give their reasons for imposing
maximum, consecutive, or more than the minimum sentences."

Later