Case Title: Flynn v. Fairview Vill. Ret. Cmty., Ltd.

Citation: 2012-Ohio-2582

Docket Number: 2010-1881

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2012-06-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Flynn v. Fairview Village Retirement Community, Ltd., Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-2582.] 
 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in 
an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested 
to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 
65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or 
other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be 
made before the opinion is published. 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2012-OHIO-2582 
FLYNN ET AL., APPELLEES, v. FAIRVIEW VILLAGE RETIREMENT  
COMMUNITY, LTD. ET AL., APPELLANTS, ET AL. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as Flynn v. Fairview Village Retirement Community, Ltd.,  
Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-2582.] 
Appellate procedure—Final orders—Denial of motion to bifurcate trial pursuant 
to R.C. 2315.21(B)—R.C. 2505.02(B)(6). 
(No. 2010-1881—Submitted October 4, 2011—Decided June 14, 2012.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 95695. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Appellants, defendants in a tort action instituted by appellees, 
executors of a decedent’s estate, appeal from a judgment of the court of appeals 
dismissing their appeal from a judgment of the Cuyahoga County Court of 
Common Pleas denying their motions to bifurcate the trial pursuant to R.C. 
2315.21(B), for lack of a final, appealable order.  Because the court of appeals 
erred in dismissing the appeal, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
and remand the cause for application of Havel v. Villa St. Joseph, 131 Ohio St.3d 
235, 2012-Ohio-552, 963 N.E.2d 1270. 
Facts 
{¶ 2} In January 2010, appellees, John T. Flynn and Judy Gordon, 
executors of the estate of Gladys F. Feran, deceased, filed a complaint in the 
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas against appellants, Fairview Village 
Retirement Community, Ltd., d.b.a. Lakewood Village Retirement Community, 
Saber Healthcare Group, L.L.C., and Saber Management, Inc., as well as Michael 
Francus and several unknown entities and individuals.  Appellees’ complaint 
alleged negligence, violation of the Ohio Nursing Home Patients’ Bill of Rights, 
violation of federal law under CFR Title 42, wrongful death, and falsification of 
medical records.  Appellees demanded compensatory and punitive damages. 
{¶ 3} Appellants filed motions to bifurcate the trial to separate appellees’ 
claims for compensatory damages from their claims for punitive damages, 
pursuant to R.C. 2315.21(B)(1).  The common pleas court denied the motions. 
{¶ 4} Appellants appealed the common pleas court’s denial of their 
motions to bifurcate, and the court of appeals sua sponte dismissed their appeal 
for lack of a final, appealable order under R.C. 2505.02.  The court of appeals 
cited Finley v. First Realty Property Mgt., Ltd., 9th Dist. No. 23355, 2007-Ohio-
2888.  We accepted appellants’ appeal from that judgment, 127 Ohio St.3d 1531, 
2011-Ohio-376, 940 N.E.2d 985, and the parties submitted briefs and oral 
argument. 
Legal Analysis 
{¶ 5} Article IV, Section 3(B)(2) of the Ohio Constitution establishes 
that courts of appeals “shall have jurisdiction as may be provided by law to 
review and affirm, modify, or reverse judgments or final orders of the courts of 
record inferior to the court of appeals within the district.”  (Emphasis added.)  See 
State ex rel. Bates v. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Appellate Dist., 130 Ohio 
January Term, 2012 
3 
 
St.3d 326, 2011-Ohio-5456, 958 N.E.2d 162, ¶ 14.  “R.C. 2505.03(A) limits the 
appellate jurisdiction of courts of appeals to the review of final orders, judgments, 
or decrees.”  State ex rel. Bd. of State Teachers Retirement Sys. of Ohio v. Davis, 
113 Ohio St.3d 410, 2007-Ohio-2205, 865 N.E.2d 1289, ¶ 44.  An order must 
satisfy the criteria of R.C. 2505.02 to constitute a final, appealable order.  Gehm v. 
Timberline Post & Frame, 112 Ohio St.3d 514, 2007-Ohio-607, 861 N.E.2d 519, 
¶ 15. 
{¶ 6} Under R.C. 2505.02(B)(6), an order is a final, appealable order if it 
is “[a]n order determining the constitutionality of * * * any changes made by 
Sub.S.B. 80 of the 125th general assembly, including the amendment of section[] 
* * * 2315.21 of the Revised Code.”  Am.Sub.S.B. No. 80, 150 Ohio Laws, Part 
V, 7915, 7969 (“S.B. 80”), amended R.C. 2315.21(B) in 2004 to require a trial 
court, on motion of any party, to bifurcate a tort action to allow presentation of 
the claims for compensatory and punitive damages in separate stages.  Havel, 131 
Ohio St.3d 235, 2012-Ohio-552, 963 N.E.2d 1270, ¶ 13.  By contrast, Civ.R. 
42(B) vests discretion in a trial court to order a separate trial of any claims or 
issues in civil actions.  Id. at ¶ 14. 
{¶ 7} By denying appellants’ motions to bifurcate under R.C. 
2315.21(B), the trial court implicitly determined that the S.B. 80 amendment to 
the statutory provision is unconstitutional, i.e., that Civ.R. 42(B) prevails over the 
conflicting statutory provision.  See Hanners v. Ho Wah Genting Wire & Cable 
SDN BHD, 10th Dist. No. 09AP-361, 2009-Ohio-6481, ¶ 13; Havel v. Villa St. 
Joseph, 8th Dist. No. 94677, 2010-Ohio-5251, ¶ 19, overruled on other grounds, 
Havel, 131 Ohio St.3d 235, 2012-Ohio-552, 963 N.E.2d 1270; Myers v. Brown, 
192 Ohio App.3d 670, 2011-Ohio-892, 950 N.E.2d 213 (5th Dist.), ¶ 6-10, 
overruled on other grounds, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2012-Ohio-1577, ___ N.E.2d 
___.  Notably, the court of appeals’ lone case citation in support of its dismissal 
was a case that discussed whether an order to bifurcate a civil trial pursuant to 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
Civ.R. 42(B) constituted a final, appealable order and did not consider the 
applicability of R.C. 2505.02(B)(6).  Finley, 2007-Ohio-2888, at ¶ 11-12. 
{¶ 8} Therefore, consistent with the foregoing precedent, we hold that 
the trial court’s order denying appellants’ motions under R.C. 2315.21(B) to 
bifurcate the trial into separate stages for appellees’ claims for compensatory 
damages and punitive damages constituted a final, appealable order pursuant to 
R.C. 2505.02(B)(6). 
Conclusion 
{¶ 9} The court of appeals erred in dismissing the appeal for lack of a 
final, appealable order.  The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed, and the 
cause is remanded to the court of appeals for application of Havel, 131 Ohio St.3d 
235, 2012-Ohio-552, 963 N.E.2d 1270. 
Judgment reversed 
and cause remanded. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, 
CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
PFEIFER, J., dissents and would affirm the judgment of the court of 
appeals. 
__________________ 
 
Seaman Garson, L.L.C., David H. Krause, and Joyce E. Carlozzi, for 
appellees. 
Poling & Petrello, Brant E. Poling, and Paul-Michael La Fayette, for 
appellants. 
 
Elk & Elk Co., L.P.A., Peter D. Traska, and Ryan M. Harrell, urging 
affirmance for amicus curiae Ohio Association for Justice. 
 
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, Alexandra T. Schimmer, Solicitor 
General, and Elisabeth A. Long, Deputy Solicitor, urging reversal for amicus 
curiae the state of Ohio. 
January Term, 2012 
5 
 
 
Chester, Willcox & Saxbe, L.L.P., Geoffrey E. Webster, and Gerhardt A. 
Gosnell II, urging reversal for amicus curiae Ohio Academy of Nursing Homes, 
Inc. 
 
Rolf & Goffman Co., L.P.A., Robert C. Pivonka, and Christopher G. 
Kuhn, urging reversal for amicus curiae Ohio Health Care Association. 
______________________