Injured Persons Will Be Denied Full Reimbursement for Medical Bills

Ohio Supreme Court Sides With Insurance Industry Again

Once again, the Ohio Supreme Court has not protected the rights of the individual injured due the wrongful acts of others. In Oliver v. Cleveland Indians Baseball Co. Ltd. Partnership, the supreme court found that caps in non-economic damages did not violate the Ohio constitution's guarantee of a trial by jury and equal protection. The plaintiffs, Donald Krieger and Clifton Oliver, successfully prosecuted a case against the City of Cleveland for malicious prosecution, false arrest, and imprisonment, and intentional inflection of emotional distress. The two men had been arrested and accused of dropping an explosive device from the upper deck of the stadium during a Cleveland Indians game. All charges were later dismissed, however, the men spent four days in jail where they were subject to poor conditions and harsh treatment by corrections officers.

The jury awarded the men each $400,000 for their actual harms and losses, most of which were noneconomic. An Ohio statute limited the noneconomic damages to $250,000. The trial court and 8th District Court of Appeals found that this limitation was unconstitutional and violated the plaintiff's right to a jury trial. Five Ohio Supreme Court justices found that the statute was constitutional and reduced the award to $250,000 each. 

Two justices dissented and found that the court's decision ignored earlier court opinions that found that the right to a trial by jury cannot be invaded or violated by either legislative act or judicial order or decree. The dissenting justices found that when the legislature passes a law that modifies a jury's determination of damages, it unconstitutionally infringes on the jury's absolute right to determine the award.

The more fundamental issue remains about the fairness of a statute that with a broad brush treats all injured persons the same. When the jury determines harms and losses in a case, it tailors its decision on the specific facts particular to that case. Until just recently, the courts held that not only was this the fairer way to decide cases such as these, but it was protected by the constitution. Again, the citizens of Ohio now need to go back to the legislature and have these statutes providing caps repealed.

Uninsured Motorist Coverage No Help When Injured By A Person With an Immunity

License Revocation Proceedings Lag Against Doctor

Arizona Legislature Considers Law To Increase Proof in a Medical Malpractice Case

Legislatures around the country are constantly trying to erode the rights of people injured by doctors. In Arizona, the legislature is considering a bill that would require the injured person to prove that the doctor was negligent based on clear and convincing evidence. The current law requires a lesser standard known as the preponderance of the evidence – which means what is more likely true. The proposed law would force the injured person to present even more evidence about the doctor's negligence. Even if it is more likely than not that the doctor was negligent, this will not be enough to establish responsibility.

Ohio’s legislature is not considering a similar bill but has passed several medical malpractice bills over the last several decades. Each time, the legislature makes it more difficult for an injured person to recover. One recent bill placed caps or limitations on the amount of money that can be recovered for non-economic damages.

To read more about the Arizona bill, click here.

Nursing Home Arbitration Provisions

Cookie Dough May Be Infested With E. Coli Bacteria

Liability of Bars For Acts of Drunken Patrons Broadened

Ohio Supreme Court Sides with Big Business Against Injured Workers