Krupansky v. Pascual

499 N.E.2d 899, 27 Ohio App. 3d 90, 27 Ohio B. 110, 1985 Ohio App. LEXIS 10290
CourtOhio Court of Appeals
DecidedAugust 28, 1985
Docket3850 and 3861
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 499 N.E.2d 899 (Krupansky v. Pascual) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Krupansky v. Pascual, 499 N.E.2d 899, 27 Ohio App. 3d 90, 27 Ohio B. 110, 1985 Ohio App. LEXIS 10290 (Ohio Ct. App. 1985).

Opinion

Quillin, J.

Loe. R. 20 of the Court of Common Pleas of Lorain County and C. P. Sup. R. 15 provide that the report and award of an arbitration board will be entered as judgment in the cause unless “appealed” from within thirty days. Case No. 3850 was consolidated with case No. 3861. In case No. 3850 we face the issue of whether this local rule provision can be applied to medical malpractice claims in light of R.C. 2711.21, the medical malpractice arbitration statute. We find the local rule to be inconsistent with the statute and therefore reverse the judgment of the trial court. We hold in case No. 3861 that the trial court did not err in finding the appellant not indigent and therefore affirm its judgment that she pay one-half of the arbitrators’ fees.

The plaintiff-appellant Julia Ella Krupansky, as personal representative of her husband’s estate, filed a medical malpractice action against the defendant-appellee Dr. Felix Pascual. Pursuant to R.C. 2711.21 the cause was heard by an arbitration board which found for Pascual. On January 2,1985, the board’s decision was filed in the court of common pleas. On February 5, 1985, the trial court rendered final judgment for Pascual because Krupansky had failed to “appeal” from the arbitration decision. The trial court’s action was predicated upon Loe. R. 22 and 20 which read in part:

“RULE 22: MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ARBITRATION
“A. All medical claims as defined in Section 2305.11(D) of the Revised Code shall be submitted to arbitration, regardless of the amount in controversy or the age of the case.
*91 ft* * *
“E. All other matters involved in the arbitration of a medical claim shall be governed by the provisions of Rule 20 of the Local Rules of Court and Section 2711.21 of the Revised Code.”
“RULE 20: ARBITRATION
“In accordance with Rule 16 [sic] of the Rules of Superintendence of the Supreme Court of Ohio, the following procedures for compulsory arbitration shall be followed in all civil cases until further order of Court:
a* * *
“(F) Report and Award:
nnt tf:
“(3) The report and award, unless appealed from as hereinafter provided, shall be final and shall have the attributes and legal effect of a verdict. If no appeal is taken within the time and in the manner specified therefor, the judge assigned to the case shall enter judgment in accordance with the majority report. After entry of such judgment, execution process may be issued as in the case of other judgments.
a* * *
“(H) Appeals:
“(1) Right of Appeal: Any party may appeal from the action of the arbitration board to the Common Pleas Court of Lorain County unless the right of appeal is waived by all parties and all counsel to the proceedings in writing prior to the arbitration hearing; said waiver shall be filed as part of the arbitration record. The right of appeal shall be subject to the conditions set forth in this rule, all of which shall be completed within thirty (30) days after the filing of the report and award with the Clerk of Courts.”

Loe. R. 20 is based upon C. P. Sup. R. 15 which states in part:

“RULE 15. ARBITRATION
“The judge or judges of general divisions of courts of common pleas shall consider, and may adopt, a plan for the mandatory arbitration of civil cases.
U* * *
“Every plan for the mandatory arbitration of civil cases adopted pursuant to this rule shall be filed with the supreme court and shall include the following basic principles:
U * * *
“(C) Report and Award. Within thirty days after the hearing, the board or the single arbitrator must file a report and award with the clerk of the court and forward copies thereof to all parties or their counsel. Such report and award, unless appealed from, shall be final and have the legal effect of a verdict upon which judgment shall be entered by the court.
“(D) Appeals. Any party may appeal the award to the court if, within thirty days after the filing of the award with the clerk of the court, he:
“(1) Files a notice of appeal with the clerk of courts and serves a copy thereof on the adverse party or parties accompanied by an affidavit that the appeal is not being taken for delay; * * *.”

As part of the arbitration report, the board requested for themselves total fees of $2,231.25. The trial court granted the motion and ordered each party to pay one-half of the fee. Subsequently, Krupansky filed a motion for leave to file an affidavit in forma pauperis instanter. By this motion Krupansky sought to have her one-half of the arbitration fees borne by the court pursuant to R.C. 2711.21. The trial court overruled the motion finding Krupansky not to be indigent. Krupan-sky appeals from both this judgment and the judgment entered on the arbitration board’s decision.

Assignment of Error

“The trial court erred to the prejudice of the plaintiff-appellant in rendering judgment without trial in favor of the defendant-appellee and *92 against the plaintiff-appellant in accordance with the recommendation of a medical malpractice arbitration panel assembled pursuant to Ohio Revised Code Section 2711.21, in the absence of an agreement by plaintiff-appellant to be bound by the decision of the arbitration panel in lieu of trial.”

The Rules of Superintendence of the Supreme Court are purely internal housekeeping rules which do not have a force equivalent to a statute. State v. Gettys (1976), 49 Ohio App. 2d 241, 243 [3 O.O.3d 286]. The Superintendence Rules are applicable only so long as they are not in conflict with statute or other governing Supreme Court rules. Berger v. Berger (1981), 3 Ohio App. 3d 125. Similarly, while the courts of common pleas have the inherent power to make reasonable rules regulating practice and procedure in those courts, these rules must not be in conflict with the statutes. Cassidy v. Glossip (1967), 12 Ohio St. 2d 17 [41 O.O.2d 153]. The Legislature of Ohio has enacted R.C. 2711.21 which specifically deals with the arbitration of medical claims. Thus, only those provisions of Loc. R. 20 and C. P. Sup. R. 15 which do not conflict with R.C. 2711.21 may be applied to medical claims.

R.C. 2711.21(C) states in regards to the effect of the arbitration decision:

“If the decision of the arbitration board is not accepted by all parties thereto, the pleadings shall be amended to aver both the fact that the controversy was submitted to an arbitration board and the decision of the arbitration board.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Tredanary v. Fritz
2018 Ohio 2374 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2018)
Nix v. Williams Family Partnership, Ltd.
2013 Ohio 5208 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2013)
Larson v. Larson
2011 Ohio 6013 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2011)
In Re Guardianship of Myers, Unpublished Decision (9-30-2003)
2003 Ohio 5308 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2003)
State, Ex Rel. Glass v. Reid
575 N.E.2d 516 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1991)
Esber v. Esber
579 N.E.2d 222 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1989)
McBride v. Manthey
530 N.E.2d 952 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
499 N.E.2d 899, 27 Ohio App. 3d 90, 27 Ohio B. 110, 1985 Ohio App. LEXIS 10290, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/krupansky-v-pascual-ohioctapp-1985.