Helton v. Kettering Medical Ctr.

Summary

The Ohio Second District Court of Appeals reversed a trial court’s judgment in favor of Kettering Medical Center and remanded the case for trial. The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by permitting Kettering to amend its answer shortly before trial to assert an immunity defense under R.C. 2305.51(B), and further held that genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment. The case concerns a patient’s claims arising from a sexual assault by another patient at a mental-health treatment facility.

Holdings

1. Immunity under R.C. 2305.51(B) is not an affirmative defense in this context because the injured patient bears the burden of establishing the elements of a cause of action under the statute.
2. The trial court abused its discretion by permitting Kettering to amend its answer two weeks before trial, after the close of discovery and the summary-judgment deadline, without justification for the delay and under circumstances prejudicial to Helton.
3. Summary judgment for Kettering was improper because genuine issues of material fact remained concerning whether Tumaini's conduct constituted an explicit threat of imminent and serious physical harm, whether Helton was a clearly identifiable potential victim, and whether Kettering failed to follow protective precautions.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by allowing Kettering to amend its answer two weeks before trial to add an immunity defense under R.C. 2305.51(B).
2. Whether the immunity under R.C. 2305.51(B) is an affirmative defense that must be pleaded by the defendant.
3. Whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to Kettering when genuine issues of material fact remained concerning the foreseeability of Tumaini's conduct, the existence of an explicit threat, Helton's status as a clearly identifiable potential victim, and Kettering's compliance with protective measures.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded