St. John v. Univ. Hosps.

2025 Ohio 653

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: February 27, 2025
• Docket: 114220
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as St. John v. Univ. Hosps., 2025-Ohio-653.]

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

LARS ST. JOHN, :

Plaintiff-Appellant, : No. 114220 v. :

UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS, ET AL., :

Defendants-Appellees. :

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: February 27, 2025

Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CV-24-996502

Appearances:

Lars St. John, pro se.

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP, Dustin B. Rawlin, Erica M. James, and Kierstin R. Benanzer, for appellees.

ANITA LASTER MAYS, J.:

{¶1} Plaintiff-appellant Lars St. John (“Lars”) appeals the trial court’s

granting of the defendants-appellees Dr. Adrienne Callahan (“Callahan”),

Dr. Kevin Cooper (“Cooper”), Robert Roseman (“Roseman”), and University Hospitals’ (“UH”) (collectively “appellees”) motion to dismiss Lars’s complaint. We

affirm the trial court’s decision.

I. Facts and Procedural History

{¶2} On April 25, 2024, Lars filed a complaint against the appellees for

bodily injury, medical negligence, fraud, discrimination, libel, slander, defamation,

and breach of contract. According to the facts in Lars’s complaint, Dr. Callahan, a

dermatologist, performed several procedures on Lars. Lars claimed that

Dr. Callahan was negligent in her performance and was not qualified. Lars also

alleged that Dr. Callahan and UH discriminated against him, which lead to him

being banned from UH’s dermatology department. Lars further alleged that the

appellees discussed his medical conditions and treatment with other medical staff

in breach of contract pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and

Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) regulations. Lars contended that the appellees

included false information in his medical records, thus defaming him.

{¶3} On May 28, 2024, a case-management conference was scheduled for

July 1, 2024. On May 29, 2024, the appellees filed a motion to dismiss arguing

that Lars failed to allege a claim upon which he may be granted relief. The

appellees also contended that Lars did not attach an affidavit of merit to support

his claim. The appellees further argued that although Lars alleged discrimination,

he did not file a claim with the Ohio Civil Rights Commission. Thereafter, Lars

filed a motion for leave of court to amend Count II of the complaint on May 30, 2024. Also, on June 11, Lars filed a motion in opposition to appellee’s motion to

dismiss. On June 24, 2024, the case-management conference was cancelled.

{¶4} On July 10, 2024, the trial court granted the appellees’ motion to

dismiss, stating in its journal entry:

Defendants’ motion to dismiss filed on 5/29/24 is well-taken and granted costs to plaintiff. Final. Court cost assessed to the plaintiff(s). Pursuant to Civ.R. 58(B), the clerk of courts is directed to serve this judgment in a manner prescribed by Civ.R. 5(B). The clerk must indicate on the docket the names and addresses of all parties, the method of service, and the costs associated with this service.

Journal Entry No. 183738140 (July 10, 2024). At the time of the trial court’s

dismissal, the motion for leave to amend Count II of the complaint was still

pending.

{¶5} Lars filed this appeal, assigning 13 errors for our review:

1. The trial court erred and abused its authority when it cancelled the case management conference meeting, then dismissing the case;

2. The trial court erred and abused its authority when stating defendant-appellees argument for subject matter jurisdiction was well taken;

3. The trial court erred and abused its authority when stating defendant-appellees argument for discrimination was well taken;

4. The trial court erred and abused its authority when stating defendants-appellees medical malpractice claim argument was well taken;

5. The trial court erred and abused its authority when stating defendant-appellees argument on plaintiff-appellant failed to identify a contract to support his breach of contract claim was well taken; 6. The trial court erred and abused its authority when stating defendants-appellees argument that plaintiff-appellant failed to allege that a defamatory statement was published to a third party was well taken;

7. The trial court erred and abused its authority when stating defendants-appellees argument on standard pleading claim was well taken;

8. The trial court erred and abused authority by failing to give a decision on plaintiff-appellant motions, demonstrating racial bias towards the appellant;

9. The trial court erred and abused its authority by not applying a question of law to its decision;

10. The trial court erred and abused its authority by dismissing appellant case under a sua sponte disguised as a de novo decision;

11. The trial court erred and abused its authority depriving plaintiff-appellant from substantive and procedural due process;

12. The trial court erred and abused its authority via using an incorrect review standard for Civ.R. 12(B)(6); and

13. The trial court erred and abused its authority denying plaintiff- appellant motion to order defendants-appellees to send all legal documents via U.S. mail.

II. Standard of Review

{¶6} A Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon

which relief can be granted tests the sufficiency of the complaint. Walas v. Leone,

2024-Ohio-4791, ¶ 40 (8th Dist.). We review a trial court’s decision to grant a

Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss de novo, i.e., we undertake an independent

review of the record and accord no deference to the trial court’s decision. Perrysburg Twp. v. Rossford, 2004-Ohio-4362, ¶ 5; Walas at ¶ 43; Hendrickson

v. Haven Place, Inc., 2014-Ohio-3726, ¶ 12 (8th Dist.).

{¶7} “When considering a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss, the court’s

review is generally limited to the four corners of the complaint along with any

documents properly attached to or incorporated within the complaint.” High St.

Properties L.L.C. v. Cleveland, 2015-Ohio-1451, ¶ 17 (8th Dist.), citing Glazer v.

Chase Home Fin. L.L.C., 2013-Ohio-5589, ¶ 38 (8th Dist.); see also Myers v.

Vandermark, 2024-Ohio-3205, ¶ 20 (7th Dist.) (“When a plaintiff relays

information in a complaint and in attachments, that information can be held

against the plaintiff in ruling on a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion.”). The court must accept

the material factual allegations of the complaint as true and construe all reasonable

inferences to be drawn from those facts in favor of the nonmoving party. See, e.g.,

Fahnbulleh v. Strahan, 73 Ohio St.3d 666, 667 (1995); Walas at ¶ 40. For a party

to prevail on a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion, it must appear beyond doubt from the face

of the complaint that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts entitling the plaintiff to

relief. O’Brien v. Univ. Comm. Tenants Union, Inc., 42 Ohio St.2d 242, 245 (1975);

Walas at ¶ 41. If there is “‘a set of facts, consistent with the plaintiff’s complaint,

which would allow the plaintiff to recover, the court may not grant a defendant’s

motion to dismiss.’” High St. Properties at ¶ 16, quoting York v. Ohio State Hwy.

Patrol, 60 Ohio St.3d 143, 145 (1991). “A Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion does not test the

merits of a claim.” Walas at ¶ 42, citing Filo v. Liberato, 2013-Ohio-1014, ¶ 15 (7th Dist.). Thus, “[a] court cannot dismiss a complaint under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) merely

because it doubts the plaintiff will prevail.” (Cleaned up.) Walas at ¶ 42.

III. Law and Analysis

{¶8} We will review Lars’s assignments of error two, three, four, and five

together, because they can be condensed into one argument: the trial court erred

when it dismissed his complaint. Lars filed a complaint against the appellees for

bodily injury, medical negligence, fraud, discrimination, libel, slander, defamation,

and breach of contract.

{¶9} Civ.R. 10(D)(2)(a) requires any complaint that contains a medical

claim to be accompanied by an affidavit of merit. “An affidavit of merit is required

to establish the adequacy of the complaint[.]” Civ.R. 10(D)(2)(d). The Supreme

Court of Ohio has recognized that the purpose of Civ.R. 10(D)(2) is “to deter the

filing of frivolous medical-malpractice claims” and “to place a heightened pleading

requirement on parties bringing medical claims.” Fletcher v. Univ. Hosps. of

Cleveland, 2008-Ohio-5379, ¶ 10, 12. “The proper response to the failure to file

the affidavit required by Civ.R. 10(D)(2) is a motion to dismiss pursuant to Civ.R.

12(B)(6).” Id. at paragraph one of the syllabus. See Adkins v. Women’s Welsh Club

of Am., 2019-Ohio-70, ¶ 9.

{¶10} Lars did not file an affidavit of merit. Thus, the trial court did not err

in dismissing his claims for bodily injury, medical negligence, and breach of

contract in violation of HIPAA. See, e.g., Johnson v. Erbeck, 2023-Ohio-3402, ¶ 20 (12th Dist.) (breach-of-contract claims against medical professionals fall

under medical malpractice and an affidavit of merit is therefore required).

{¶11} Lars argued that the appellees discriminated against him based on his

race when they banned him from the UH Dermatology Department. R.C.

4112.02(G) prohibits “a place of public accommodation to deny to any person,

except for reasons applicable alike to all persons regardless of race . . . the full

enjoyment of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, or privileges of the place

of public accommodation.”

{¶12} Before bringing a complaint under R.C. 4112.02 against a party, Lars

must first exhaust his administrative remedies. See Glenn v. Trumbull Cty.

Commrs., 2024-Ohio-1114, ¶ 69 (11th Dist.); Showman v. Q Corp. Holdings, LLC,

2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6423 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 12, 2024). R.C. 4112.05(B)(1)

provides, in part: “[A]ny person may file a charge with the commission alleging

that another person has engaged or is engaging in an unlawful discriminatory

practice.” Additionally, “the charge shall be in writing and under oath and shall be

filed with the commission within six months after the alleged unlawful

discriminatory practice was committed.” Id.

{¶13} Lars has not demonstrated that he filed a charge with the Ohio Civil

Rights Commission. A claim for racial discrimination under R.C. 4112.02(G) must

be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction if a plaintiff fails to exhaust

their administrative remedies under R.C. 4112.05. See Woods v. The Limited, 1979 Ohio App. LEXIS 8640 (2d Dist. June 26, 1979). Thus, the trial court did not err

when it dismissed Lars’s discrimination claim.

{¶14} For the remaining assignments of error, Lars fails to provide

statements of facts relevant to the assignments of error presented for review, with

appropriate references to the record as required by App.R. 16(A)(6). Rather, Lars

simply restates the assignments of error. Lars also does not provide an argument

containing his contentions with respect to each assignment of error presented for

review and the reasons in support of the contentions, with citations to the

authorities, statutes, and parts of the record on which appellant relies required by

App.R. 16(A)(7).

{¶15} “An appellate court may disregard an assignment of error pursuant to

App.R. 12(A)(2) ‘if the party raising it fails to identify in the record the error on

which the assignment of error is based or fails to argue the assignment separately

in the brief, as required under App.R. 16(A).’” Baxter v. Thomas, 2015-Ohio-2148,

¶ 55 (8th Dist.), quoting Rodriguez v. Rodriguez, 2009-Ohio-3456, ¶ 6 (8th Dist.).

“It is not the duty of this court to search the record for evidence to support an

argument supporting any alleged error.” Id., citing Rodriguez at ¶ 7.

{¶16} In providing guidance to appellate courts faced with vague matters

such as that presented in the instant case, the Ohio Supreme Court has established

that appellate courts “are not obligated to search the record or formulate legal

arguments on behalf of the parties.” Risner v. Ohio Dept. of Natural. Resources,

Ohio Div. of Wildlife, 2015-Ohio-3731, ¶ 28. “App.R. 12(A)(2) establishes that, ‘the court may disregard an assignment of error presented for review if the party raising

it fails to identify in the record the error on which the assignment of error is based

or fails to argue the assignment separately in the brief, as required under App.R.

16(A).’” Leaf v. Leaf, 2022-Ohio-3301, ¶ 20 (5th Dist.), quoting App.R 12(A)(2).

As such, we disregard these assignments of error.

{¶17} Therefore, Lars’s second, third, fourth, and fifth assignments of error

are overruled, and the remaining assignments of error are disregarded.

{¶18} Judgment affirmed.

It is ordered that appellees recover from appellant costs herein taxed.

The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the

common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution.

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule

27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

__________________________ ANITA LASTER MAYS, JUDGE

MICHAEL JOHN RYAN, P.J., and DEENA R. CALABRESE, J., CONCUR