Miller v. Toledo Hosp.

2017 Ohio 2691
CourtOhio Court of Appeals
DecidedMay 5, 2017
DocketL-16-1211
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 2017 Ohio 2691 (Miller v. Toledo Hosp.) 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
Miller v. Toledo Hosp., 2017 Ohio 2691 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017).

Opinion

[Cite as Miller v. Toledo Hosp., 2017-Ohio-2691.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY

Joni R. Miller, etc. Court of Appeals No. L-16-1211

Appellant Trial Court No. CI0201501417

v.

The Toledo Hospital DECISION AND JUDGMENT

Appellee Decided: May 5, 2017

*****

Michael D. Bell, for appellant.

James E. Brazeau and Chad M. Thompson, for appellee.

PIETRYKOWSKI, J.

{¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant, Joni Miller, Administrator of the Estate of Robert

McIlvain, Deceased, appeals the September 16, 2016 judgment of the Lucas County

Court of Common Pleas which granted summary judgment in favor of defendant-

appellee, The Toledo Hospital, in a medical negligence case. Because we agree that no

genuine issues of fact remain for trial, we affirm. {¶ 2} The underlying facts of this case are essentially undisputed. Mr. McIlvain

was admitted to The Toledo Hospital’s cardiac step-down unit on August 20, 2013. On

that date, McIlvain was 77 years old and suffering from various coronary issues.

McIlvain was also noted to have memory issues. During the admission process, McIlvain

was assessed as a “high risk” for falls under the Morse Fall Risk Scale assessment. Per

hospital fall prevention policy, this required the use of various preventative measures

including assigning a patient a room near the nurse’s station, leaving the door open,

instructing a patient to call for assistance, providing assistance with transfers and

ambulation, and considering the use of a bed alarm.

{¶ 3} On August 23, 2013, around 9:30 p.m., McIlvain fell in his room. The only

individual who witnessed the fall, Toledo Hospital Nurse Michelle Starkey, unfortunately

passed away and was unable to provide a statement regarding the incident. At the time,

Nurse Starkey charted the events as follows:

pt found walking into bathroom per self. Was asked if he needed

any help. pt proceeded towards toilet, lost balance and fell. Was asked if

anything hurt, said only rt inner upper leg. Abrasion noted on rt fa. No

other apparent injuries noted.

{¶ 4} Following his fall, it was determined that McIlvain suffered a right hip

fracture which was surgically repaired. McIlvain was transferred to a rehabilitation

facility and was later discharged home. McIlvain passed away on May 5, 2014, from

congestive heart failure.

2. {¶ 5} This action commenced on February 9, 2015, with appellant, decedent’s

daughter, asserting a claim for medical negligence and for wrongful death following

McIlvain’s August 23, 2013 fall and resulting injury while a patient at appellee Toledo

Hospital. Appellant dismissed the wrongful death claim on March 3, 2016.

{¶ 6} On June 10, 2016, appellee filed a motion for summary judgment on the

remaining negligence claim. The essence of its argument was that appellant was not able

to establish a prima facie case of negligence because her arguments regarding the

elements of breach and causation were speculative. Appellee specifically pointed to the

March 2, 2016 deposition testimony of appellant’s expert, Nurse Carol Alvin, and the

materials she relied upon in rendering her opinion.

{¶ 7} In response, appellant, relying on the same materials, contended that neither

Nurse Starkey nor any medical report indicated that Mr. McIlvain was being assisted at

the time of his fall. Appellant argued that this, at minimum, created an issue of fact for

trial. Appellant submitted the July 7, 2016 affidavit of Nurse Alvin.

{¶ 8} In the trial court’s September 16, 2016 opinion and judgment entry granting

summary judgment, it agreed that appellant’s expert’s opinion that appellee breached the

standard of reasonable nursing care by failing to provide a bed alarm and/or by failing to

assist McIlvain was not supported by the evidence or any reasonable inference derived

therefrom. Specifically, the court concluded that as to the lack of a bed alarm, the

testimony of Nurse Alvin failed to demonstrate that had the bed alarm been in place,

McIlvain would not have made it to the bathroom unattended. Regarding the alleged lack

3. of assistance, the court found that Nurse Alvin’s opinion that Nurse Starkey failed to

assist McIlvain and that this caused his fall was based upon an inference that she had the

time to assist him prior to the fall and that she, in fact, failed to act consistently with that

opportunity. This appeal followed.

{¶ 9} Appellant now raises the following assignment of error:

The trial court erred when it granted summary judgment in favor of

Appellee The Toledo Hospital.

{¶ 10} At the outset we note that appellate review of a trial court’s grant of

summary judgment is de novo. Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102, 105, 671

N.E.2d 241 (1996). Accordingly, we review the trial court’s grant of summary judgment

independently and without deference to the trial court’s determination. Brown v. Scioto

Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 87 Ohio App.3d 704, 711, 622 N.E.2d 1153 (4th Dist.1993).

Summary judgment will be granted only when there remains no genuine issue of material

fact and, when construing the evidence most strongly in favor of the nonmoving party,

reasonable minds can only conclude that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a

matter of law. Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 64, 66, 375 N.E.2d

46 (1978); Civ.R. 56(C). The burden of showing that no genuine issue of material fact

exists falls upon the party who moves for summary judgment. Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio

St.3d 280, 294, 662 N.E.2d 264 (1996). However, once the movant supports his or her

motion with appropriate evidentiary materials, the nonmoving party “may not rest upon

the mere allegations or denials of his pleadings, but his response, by affidavit or as

4. otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a

genuine issue for trial.” Civ.R. 56(E).

{¶ 11} In her sole assignment of error, appellant asserts that the trial court erred

when it found that the evidence presented on the element of violation of the standard of

care and the element of causation was speculative and, thus, failed to create an issue of

fact for trial.

{¶ 12} Three elements must be proven in order to maintain a medical malpractice

or professional negligence cause of action. First, a plaintiff must establish the applicable

standard of care, usually through expert testimony. Second, a plaintiff must show a

negligent failure on the part of the hospital or hospital employee to meet the standard of

care. Finally, a direct causal connection must be demonstrated between the medically

negligent act and the injury. Starkey v. St. Rita’s Med. Ctr., 117 Ohio App.3d 164, 169,

690 N.E.2d 57 (3d Dist.1997); Bruni v. Tatsumi, 46 Ohio St.2d 127, 346 N.E.2d 673

(1976).

{¶ 13} As set forth above, appellant’s expert was Carol L. Alvin, RN, BSN. Nurse

Alvin had been licensed in Ohio since 1979, and received her critical care nurse status in

1982. Alvin also received her cardiac medicine certification in 2010. Nurse Alvin is not

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

Related

Glase v. Joshi
2025 Ohio 4438 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2025)
Estate of Fleenor v. Ottawa Cty.
2021 Ohio 2251 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2021)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2017 Ohio 2691, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-toledo-hosp-ohioctapp-2017.