Earlier this year, the Ohio Supreme Court upheld Ohio’s tort reform statute which mandates that trial courts “bifurcate,” or divide, trials into two separate stages where the plaintiff has alleged claims for both compensatory and punitive damages. Havel v. Villa St. Joseph, 2012-Ohio-552. The statute, R.C. § 2315.21(B), which is intended to rein in excessive noneconomic jury awards, provides that upon “the motion of any party, the trial of the tort action shall be bifurcated” into two stages. At the first stage, the jury determines the defendant’s liability and potentially awards compensatory damages. If such liability is found, the trial proceeds to a second stage where the jury is asked to determine whether to award additional punitive damages.
Today, in Flynn v. Fairview Village Retirement Community, Ltd., Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-2582, the Court took another step towards enforcing a defendant’s right to bifurcate punitive damages claims by holding that a court’s decision denying a motion to bifurcate a punitive damages claim at trial constitutes a final appealable order.
Generally speaking, appellate courts have jurisdiction only over final orders. This typically includes those decisions that affect a substantial right and in effect determine an action and prevent a judgment. For an order to determine the action, it must dispose of the merits of the action. With a few statutory exceptions, a judgment that leaves issues unresolved and contemplates further action is not considered a final, appealable order unless the remaining issue is mechanical and/or involves only a ministerial task.
The plaintiffs in Flynn filed an action against a long term care provider alleging negligence, wrongful death, falsification of medical records and a violation of the Ohio Nursing Home Patients’ Bill of Rights. The complaint demanded both compensatory and punitive damages. After the trial court denied the providers’ motion to bifurcate the punitive damages claim, an appeal was filed with the Eighth District Court of Appeals. The appellate court, however, dismissed the appeal for lack of a final appealable order, meaning that the trial court’s denial of the motion to bifurcate would not be eligible for appellate review until the conclusion of trial. Obviously, such a result would have forced the provider to incur the expense of a full trial on the merits before it could appeal the denial of its motion to bifurcate.
Upon review, the Ohio Supreme Court held that the trial court’s order denying the long term care provider’s motion to bifurcate the trial into separate stages for plaintiffs’ claims for compensatory damages and punitive damages did indeed constituted a final, appealable order and was therefore immediately appealable. The Court based its decision on the fact that the trial court’s denial of the defendants’ motion to bifurcate was essentially an order challenging the constitutionality of Ohio’s tort reform statute and, under Ohio law, any order addressing the constitutionality of the tort reform statute constitutes a final appealable order.
Today’s decision not only reaffirms the fact that bifurcation is mandatory upon the motion of any party, but also, by affording litigants an immediate right to appeal the denial of such a motion, will help prevent trial courts from otherwise ignoring the plain mandatory bifurcation language in R.C. 2315.2(B).
For a copy of this opinion or more information concerning its application, or any other question with respect to healthcare liability, please contact one of Reminger’s Long Term Care Practice Group Members.
