Wyatt v. Springfield

2024 Ohio 3334

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: August 30, 2024
• Docket: 2024-CA-3
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as Wyatt v. Springfield, 2024-Ohio-3334.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT CLARK COUNTY

CARTHAGENIA WYATT : INDIVIDUALLY : AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE : C.A. No. 2024-CA-3 ESTATE OF DELTINA GRAVES : : Trial Court Case No. 22CV0289 Appellants : : (Civil Appeal from Common Pleas v. : Court) : CITY OF SPRINGFIELD OHIO, ET AL. :

Appellees

...........

OPINION

Rendered on August 30, 2024

ROBERT L. GRESHAM, Attorney for Appellant

KAITLIN L. MADIGAN, Attorney for Appellee

.............

TUCKER, J.

{¶ 1} Carthagenia Wyatt appeals, individually and as administrator of the estate of

Deltina Graves, from an adverse summary-judgment ruling on a complaint alleging -2-

wrongful death and other causes of action against the City of Springfield and two

emergency medical technicians (EMTs). The appellants also include four individuals who

were the decedent’s next of kin.

{¶ 2} The appellants advance five assignments of error. First, they contend

summary judgment was improper because the record contained evidence rebutting a

coroner’s cause-of-death determination. Second, they challenge the trial court’s

determination that the appellees were entitled to statutory immunity. Third, they claim the

record revealed a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the EMTs engaged in

willful, wanton, or malicious misconduct. Fourth, they challenge the trial court’s denial of

their motion for leave to file expert disclosures. Fifth, they argue that the trial court erred

in denying them leave to file a supplemental memorandum opposing summary judgment.

{¶ 3} We find the trial court’s immunity determination to be dispositive of this

appeal. The trial court correctly found the appellees—two EMTs and the City of

Springfield—immune from liability because the EMTs did not engage in willful or wanton

misconduct as a matter of law. Accordingly, the trial court’s judgment will be affirmed.

I. Background

{¶ 4} The present appeal stems from the death of Deltina Graves. The appellants

contend she died at a local hospital as a result of being “dropped on her head” during a

medical transport by Springfield EMTs Scott Kaufman and Cory Scanlan. Following the

incident, the appellants filed a complaint against the EMTs and the City of Springfield

alleging wrongful death and nine other tort causes of action. Following some discovery,

the appellees moved for summary judgment arguing, among other things, that they were -3-

entitled to statutory immunity. The trial court sustained the motion for several reasons.

First, it found no evidence to rebut a coroner’s determination that Graves’ cause of death

was an “acute atraumatic intracranial hemorrhage,” meaning that the hemorrhage was

not caused by any head trauma. Second, it reasoned that the EMTs and the City of

Springfield statutorily were immune from liability. Third, if found that wrongful-death and

survivorship claims needed to be brought in the name of the decedent’s personal

representative and that any such individual claims failed for lack of standing. Fourth, it

concluded that the facts did not support emotional-distress claims. Fifth, it found no

evidence of willful, wanton, or malicious misconduct by the EMTs. This appeal followed.

II. Immunity and Willful or Wanton Misconduct

{¶ 5} We begin our analysis with the appellants’ second and third assignments of

error, which state:

II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE DEFENDANT

APPELLEES ARE ENTITLED TO IMMUNITY.

III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT INSUFFICIENT

EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO SUPPORT A CLAIM OF

WILLFUL, WANTON, AND MALICIOUS MISCONDUCT.

{¶ 6} Relying on R.C. 2744.03, the appellants contend the record revealed a

genuine issue of material fact as to whether the EMTs who transported Graves to the

hospital acted willfully, wantonly, recklessly, or otherwise engaged in malicious

misconduct and whether their actions deviated from the standard of care and proximately

caused the decedent’s death. Therefore, the appellants assert that the trial court -4-

improperly entered summary judgment against them.

{¶ 7} Under Civ.R. 56(C), summary judgment may be granted when the moving

party demonstrates that (1) there is no genuine issue of material fact, (2) the moving party

is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and (3) reasonable minds can come to but one

conclusion and that conclusion is adverse to the party against whom the motion for

summary judgment is made. State ex rel. Grady v. State Emp. Relations Bd., 78 Ohio

St.3d 181, 183 (1997).

{¶ 8} “In a summary judgment review, the court may not weigh the proof or choose

among reasonable inferences, and the court is limited to examining the evidence in the

light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Coterel v. Reed, 2016-Ohio-7411, ¶ 12 (2d

Dist.), citing Dupler v. Mansfield Journal Co., Inc., 64 Ohio St.2d 116, 121 (1980).

Significantly, however, “[o]nly disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit

under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment.” Anderson

v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). “[B]ecause summary judgment is a

procedural device to terminate litigation, it must be awarded with caution. Doubts must

be resolved in favor of the non-moving party.” Murphy v. Reynoldsburg, 65 Ohio St.3d

356, 359 (1992), citing Osborne v. Lyles, 63 Ohio St.3d 326, 333 (1992). Appellate review

of summary judgment is de novo. Gilliland v. Adams, 2023-Ohio-3083, ¶ 24 (2d Dist.).

{¶ 9} With the foregoing standards in mind, we conclude that the trial court properly

entered summary judgment for EMTs Kaufman and Scanlan and for the City of Springfield

based on statutory immunity. With regard to the EMTs, the trial court correctly looked to

R.C. 4765.49(A), which provides: “A first responder, emergency medical technician-basic, -5-

emergency medical technician-intermediate, or emergency medical technician-

paramedic is not liable in damages in a civil action for injury, death, or loss to person or

property resulting from the individual’s administration of emergency medical services,

unless the services are administered in a manner that constitutes willful or wanton

misconduct.”

{¶ 10} With regard to the City of Springfield, R.C. 2744.02(A)(1) provides political-

subdivision immunity for governmental functions, which include the provision of

emergency medical services. Riffle v. Physicians and Surgeons Ambulance Serv., Inc.,

2013-Ohio-989, ¶ 15. An exception is found in R.C. 2744.02(B)(5), which applies “when

civil liability is expressly imposed upon the political subdivision by a section of the Revised

Code.” In Riffle, the Ohio Supreme Court held that R.C. 4765.49(B) expressly imposed

liability on a political subdivision under certain circumstances. Id. at ¶ 23. In particular,

R.C. 4765.49(B) states that a political subdivision providing emergency medical services

is not liable in damages in a civil action for injury, death, or loss” resulting from an EMT’s

actions “unless the services are provided in a manner that constitutes willful or wanton

misconduct.” Thus, where EMT services are provided in a manner that constitutes willful

or wanton misconduct, R.C. 4765.49(B) expressly imposes liability on a political

subdivision within the meaning of R.C. 2744.02(B)(5). Riffle at ¶ 23.

{¶ 11} Under R.C. 4765.49(A) and (B), then, appellees Kaufman, Scanlan, and the

City of Springfield all were immune from liability unless the EMTs administered services

to the decedent in a manner that constituted willful or wanton misconduct. After

conducting a de novo review, we agree with the trial court’s assessment that Kaufman -6-

and Scanlan did not do so as a matter of law. Construing the evidence and all reasonable

inferences in favor of the appellants, we see no genuine issue of material fact.

{¶ 12} “Willful misconduct implies an intentional deviation from a clear duty or from

a definite rule of conduct, a deliberate purpose not to discharge some duty necessary to

safety, or purposefully doing wrongful acts with knowledge or appreciation of the

likelihood of resulting injury.” Anderson v. Massillon, 2012-Ohio-5711, ¶ 32. Willful

misconduct effectively requires an intent to injure. Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, Inc., 82

Ohio St.3d 367, 375 (1998). “Wanton misconduct is the failure to exercise any care toward

those to whom a duty of care is owed in circumstances in which there is a great probability

that harm will result.” Anderson at ¶ 33.

{¶ 13} In the present case, EMTs Kaufman and Scanlan were called to Graves’

residence where they found her in an upstairs bathroom. Family members reported that

Graves had been experiencing vomiting and diarrhea. She was sweaty, incoherent, and

unable to move her left side. The EMTs moved Graves outside and placed her on what

they referred to as “a cot.” The appellants’ strongest evidence with regard to the EMTs’

treatment of Graves from that point on came from Theresa Moore, a neighbor who

watched from her kitchen window across the street. In her deposition, Moore described

what she saw as follows:

Well, it was when they were sitting there, she—it was like [Graves]

had passed out, and it was like slow motion as she went off the side of the

gurney. And I literally scared my kids to death because I was standing there

going, oh, my God, catch her, catch her, catch her. And [Moore’s children] -7-

come flying like, what’s going on? And that’s when I seen her fall off that

gurney. And that’s—it was—there was no belt on her. If she would have had

a belt on, she would have never fell off that gurney.

Moore depo. at 43.

{¶ 14} When asked whether Graves fell “all the way” to the ground, Moore

responded that “there’s no way she didn’t.” Id. at 48. Moore explained that she watched

Graves fall from the side of the cot as one of the EMTs “was looking up in the air looking

at the stars or something.” Id. That EMT then grabbed Graves’ feet and ankles, which

were the only thing remaining on the cot. Id. From her vantage point, Moore did not

actually see any part of Graves’ body hit the ground. Given that only Graves’ feet and

ankles remained on the cot, however, Moore opined that “there’s no way she didn’t” hit

the ground. Id. at 49. Based on the way Graves fell, Moore stated that it would have been

the left side of her head that would have struck the ground. Id. at 50. Finally, Moore

described what the EMT holding Graves’ feet and ankles did after she fell off the side of

the cot: “He just kind of looked—he kind of looked back at the house that sits straight

across the street from mine, * * * he kind of looked back there, and I felt like he looked

back there to see if anybody was watching. They never looked over toward my house.”

Id. at 51.

{¶ 15} Upon being transported to Springfield Regional Medical Center, Graves

was diagnosed with a “subdural hematoma,” or bleeding on the brain, on the left side of

her head. In her deposition, Dr. Jenny Guest, the emergency-room physician, testified

that Graves’ symptoms inside the home before being moved by the EMTs were consistent -8-

with a subdural hematoma. Guest depo. at 19. Guest observed no external signs of head

trauma, which she typically would have expected to see if Graves had hit her head after

falling from a cot. Id. at 23. Guest acknowledged, however, that external signs do not

always accompany an internal head injury. Id. at 24. She also agreed that a blow to the

head due to a fall from a cot could cause symptoms like those Graves was experiencing

at the hospital. Id. at 22. Although the two EMTs did not report that Graves had fallen

from a cot, Dr. Guest was aware of the allegation. The neighbor, Moore, had told Graves’

mother about what she had seen, and Graves’ mother had advised the doctor. Id. at 14.

{¶ 16} After receiving initial treatment at the hospital in Springfield, Graves was

transported by helicopter to Miami Valley Hospital, where she died. Following an autopsy,

a coroner identified the cause of death as an “acute atraumatic intracranial hemorrhage,

contributed to by hypertensive cardiovascular disease and complications of chronic

ethanol abuse.” (Emphasis added.)

{¶ 17} For their part, Kaufman and Scanlan denied that Graves fell off of the cot.

In their depositions, they described her “listing” to the side before they caught her, stopped

her from going any further, and repositioned her. Kaufman depo. at 59; Scanlan depo. at

35. Both EMTs denied that Graves ever struck the ground. Kaufman depo. at 102;

Scanlan depo. at 35. Both EMTs stated that they had strapped Graves to the cot with all

the available straps (which only went to her torso) and that the cot’s partial railing (which

only went to her hips or waist) was up. Kaufman depo. at 60, 92; Scanlan depo. at 32.

Although eyewitness Moore did not see any straps from her vantage point, the appellants

concede on appeal that the two EMTs did secure Graves with two straps—“one around -9-

her ankles, and the other around her midsection.” Appellants’ Brief at 8. They argue,

however, that the EMTs should have used more effective restraints known as “Spider

straps.”

{¶ 18} Having reviewed the record, we see nothing from which a trier of fact

reasonably could have found that Kaufman or Scanlon engaged in willful or wanton

misconduct toward Graves. Construing the evidence and all reasonable inferences in

favor of the appellants, a trier of fact reasonably could have inferred that Graves slid from

the cot despite the lower portion of her body being strapped and did strike her head on

the ground. While the appellees characterize such a conclusion as “speculation,” we

believe it is a fair inference that can be drawn from Moore’s testimony. A trier of fact also

could have inferred from Moore’s testimony that the EMTs were not paying close enough

attention when Graves slid from the cot. We see no basis, however, for finding that either

EMT engaged in willful or wanton misconduct toward Graves. With regard to the

appellants’ argument about the use of “Spider straps,” Kaufman acknowledged that they

should be used “if available.” Kaufman depo. at 26. But the cots his department used did

not have them available. Id. at 26-28. For his part, Scanlan was not familiar with Spider

straps. Scanlan depo. at 42.

{¶ 19} Even if we were to find the first-responder/EMT immunity statute, R.C.

4765.49(A), inapplicable to Kaufman and Scanlan (despite its clear applicability) and

instead to apply the general immunity statute, R.C. 2744.03, summary judgment would

have been proper. Under R.C. 2744.03(A)(6)(b), which covers all political-subdivision

employees, an employee is immune unless he or she acted “with a malicious purpose, in -10-

bad faith, or in a wanton or reckless manner.”

{¶ 20} We fully addressed wanton misconduct in our analysis above. With regard

to the other standards, “malicious purpose” means a willful and intentional design to

injure. Coterel v. Reed, 2016-Ohio-7411, ¶ 16 (2d Dist.), quoting Rondy v. Richland

Newhope Indus., Inc., 2016-Ohio-118, ¶ 42 (5th Dist.). “Bad faith” suggests a dishonest

purpose and conscious wrongdoing with ulterior motives or ill will. Id. We see no genuine

issue of material fact as to whether Kaufman or Scanlan acted with a malicious purpose

or in bad faith toward Graves. Nothing in the record supported such a conclusion.

{¶ 21} The only remaining standard under R.C. 2744.03(A)(6)(b) is “reckless”

conduct. Such conduct “is characterized by the conscious disregard of or indifference to

a known or obvious risk of harm to another that is unreasonable under the circumstances

and is substantially greater than negligent conduct.” Anderson v. Massillon, 2012-Ohio-

5711, ¶ 34. Recklessness requires a showing that the actor knew his or her conduct “in

all probability” would result in injury. McDonald v. Lacy, 2018-Ohio-2753, ¶ 26 (2d Dist.).

Even showing recklessness is a “rigorous” threshold to meet. Id.

{¶ 22} We see nothing from which a trier of fact reasonably could have concluded

that Kaufman or Scanlan acted recklessly. The appellants complain about Graves not

being strapped above the waist, but nothing in the record suggests the availability of

additional straps. We note too that the EMTs provided uncontroverted testimony about

the cot’s partial side rails being up. The appellants also complain about the EMTs not

mentioning Graves’ fall to the emergency-room physician after the fact. But the physician,

Dr. Guest, promptly had been made aware of the allegation by Graves’ mother. At most, -11-

the record suggests that Kaufman and Scanlan were inattentive when Graves

unexpectedly slid from her cot. As a matter of law, this conduct could not have constituted

more than negligence.

{¶ 23} For all of the foregoing reasons, the trial court correctly entered summary

judgment in favor of Kaufman, Scanlan, and the City of Springfield based on statutory

immunity from liability. The appellants’ second and third assignments of error are

overruled.

III. Other Issues

{¶ 24} The appellants’ first, fourth, and fifth assignments of error state:

I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN RULING THAT INSUFFICIENT

EVIDENCE HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED TO REBUT THE CORONER’S

CAUSE OF DEATH CONCLUSION.

IV. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN DENYING THE

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE EXPERT

DISCLOSURE.

V. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO ISSUE A DECISION

REGARDING AND GRANT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE

SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

{¶ 25} In their first assignment of error, the appellants contend the record contains

evidence rebutting the coroner’s determination that Graves died from an “atraumatic”

subdural hematoma. The appellants contend a trier of fact reasonably could have found -12-

that the fatal hematoma was caused by trauma, namely Graves’ fall from the cot.

{¶ 26} In their fourth assignment of error, the appellants challenge the trial court’s

denial of their motion for leave to file expert disclosures to identify two medical doctors as

their experts. The appellants claim these experts would have provided important

testimony about the cause of Graves’ death being a hematoma that resulted from her fall

off of the cot.

{¶ 27} In their fifth assignment of error, the appellants contend the trial court erred

in denying them leave to file a supplemental memorandum opposing summary judgment.

The appellants explain that they desired to supplement their opposition with deposition

testimony from the appellees’ own medical expert regarding the cause of Graves’

hematoma.

{¶ 28} In light of our statutory-immunity determination above, we find the

appellants’ first, fourth, and fifth assignments of error to be moot. Each of these

assignments of error addresses the cause of Graves’ hematoma and whether it resulted

from her striking her head after falling from the cot. Even if we assume, however, that

Graves fell from the cot, struck her head, and died from a subdural hematoma caused by

the fall, the appellees would remain entitled to statutory immunity for the reasons set forth

above. Nothing in the appellants’ first, fourth, or fifth assignments of error has any bearing

on whether the appellants engaged in conduct that would deprive them of immunity.

Accordingly, we find those assignments of error to be moot and overrule them on that

basis.

IV. Conclusion -13-

{¶ 29} The judgment of the Clark County Common Pleas Court is affirmed.

WELBAUM, J. and LEWIS, J., concur.