Title: Manley v. Marsico

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Manley v. Marsico, 116 Ohio St.3d 85, 2007-Ohio-5543.] 
 
 
MANLEY, APPELLEE, v. MARSICO, APPELLANT, ET AL. 
[Cite as Manley v. Marsico, 116 Ohio St.3d 85, 2007-Ohio-5543.] 
Judgments – Final, appealable orders – R.C. 2505.02 — Order denying motion to 
dismiss for failure to file affidavit of merit contemporaneously with 
medical-malpractice complaint as required by Civ.R. 10(D)(2) is not final, 
appealable order. 
(No. 2006-1263 - Submitted May 24, 2007 - Decided October 24, 2007.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Clinton County, No. CA2006-04-013. 
__________________ 
SYLLABUS OF THE COURT 
A trial court’s order denying a motion to dismiss for the procedural pleading error 
of not filing an affidavit of merit contemporaneously with a complaint as 
required by Civ.R. 10(D)(2) does not arise from an ancillary proceeding, 
does not deny a provisional remedy pursuant to R.C. 2505.02(A)(3), and is 
not final and appealable under R.C. 2505.02(B)(4). 
__________________ 
CUPP, J. 
{¶ 1} In this discretionary appeal, we consider whether a trial court’s 
denial of a motion to dismiss because a plaintiff failed to file an affidavit of merit 
contemporaneously with the complaint as required by Civ.R. 10(D)(2) is an 
appealable provisional remedy under R.C. 2505.02(A)(3) and (B)(4).  For the 
reasons that follow, we hold that it is not. 
I.  Background and Case Procedure 
{¶ 2} In January 2006, appellee, Mary Manley, filed a medical-
malpractice suit against appellant, Nicholas P. Marsico, M.D., and Eye 
Specialists, Inc.  In the complaint Manley alleged that Marsico performed her eye 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
surgery negligently, which resulted in permanent injuries.  Marsico is employed 
by Eye Specialists. 
{¶ 3} In July 2005, this court adopted Civ.R. 10(D)(2).1  This rule 
requires that all medical-malpractice complaints filed in Ohio courts include an 
affidavit of merit signed by a qualified expert attesting that there is sufficient 
medical evidence supporting the plaintiff’s claim.  Civ.R. 10(D)(2)(a). 
{¶ 4} Manley did not include the affidavit with her complaint.  In 
response, Marsico filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.  Manley asserted that 
she was unable to file the affidavit contemporaneously with her complaint 
because she had been unable to contact her retained expert, despite repeated 
attempts.  Just over a month after Manley filed her complaint, Manley 
reestablished contact with her expert, and within a week she secured and filed the 
affidavit.  Thereafter, Marsico filed a motion to strike the affidavit as untimely.  
The order issued by the trial court denied Marsico’s motions to strike and dismiss 
and accepted the affidavit filed by Manley. 
{¶ 5} Marsico appealed the order.  The Twelfth District Court of 
Appeals dismissed the appeal, however, on the basis that outstanding issues 
remained, there was no Civ.R. 54(B) language in the order appealed from, and, 
therefore, the order was not final and appealable.  Thereafter, we accepted 
jurisdiction.  Manley v. Marsico, 111 Ohio St.3d 1410, 2006-Ohio-5083, 854 
N.E.2d 1090.2   
                                                 
1.  {¶ a} Civ.R. 10(D) was amended on July 1, 2005, to include subsection (2).  According to a 
2005 Staff Note: 
      {¶ b} “Civ.R. 10 is amended in response to a request from the General Assembly contained in 
Section 3 of Sub. H.B. 215 of the 125th General Assembly, effective September 13, 2004.” 
 
2.  Eye Specialists also filed motions to dismiss the complaint and to strike the affidavit Manley 
filed, which the trial court denied.  Similarly, Eye Specialists appealed from the trial court’s order.  
Eye Specialists did not, however, perfect its appeal to this court.  See Manley v. Marsico, 112 
Ohio St.3d 1496, 2007-Ohio-816, 862 N.E.2d 121. 
 
January Term, 2007 
3 
II.  Analysis 
{¶ 6} Marsico argues that an order denying a motion to dismiss for 
failure to comply with the affidavit-of-merit requirement of Civ.R. 10(D)(2) is an 
appealable order as defined by R.C. 2505.02.  Specifically, Marsico claims that 
such an order denies a provisional remedy that meets the requirements of R.C. 
2505.02(B)(4) and thereby permits an immediate appellate review.  We do not 
agree. 
{¶ 7} Civ.R. 10(D)(2)(a) provides: 
{¶ 8} “Except as provided in division (D)(2)(b) of this rule, a complaint 
that contains a medical claim * * * shall include one or more affidavits of merit 
relative to each defendant named in the complaint for whom expert testimony is 
necessary to establish liability.  Affidavits of merit shall be provided by an expert 
witness * * * .” 
{¶ 9} A provisional remedy, as defined in R.C. 2505.02(A)(3), is “a 
proceeding ancillary to an action, including, but not limited to, a proceeding for a 
preliminary injunction, attachment, discovery of privileged matter, suppression of 
evidence, a prima-facie showing pursuant to section 2307.85 or 2307.86 of the 
Revised Code, a prima-facie showing pursuant to section 2307.92 of the Revised 
Code, or a finding made pursuant to division (A)(3) of section 2307.93 of the 
Revised Code.”3 
{¶ 10} Provisional remedies are not limited to those specifically identified 
in R.C. 2505.02(A)(3).  See State v. Muncie (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 440, 448, 746 
N.E.2d 1092  (the phrase "including, but not limited to" precedes a nonexhaustive 
list of examples).  Nonetheless, a provisional remedy is an order that is ancillary, 
meaning it is “ ‘attendant upon or aids another proceeding.’ ”  Muncie, 91 Ohio 
                                                 
3.  R.C. 2307.85 addresses the minimum requirements for silicosis claims; R.C. 2307.86 concerns claims for 
mixed-dust disease; R.C. 2307.92 applies to asbestos claims; and R.C. 2307.93(A)(3) applies to court 
decisions in which the asbestos legislation is held unconstitutionally retroactive.   
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
St.3d at 449, 746 N.E.2d 1092, quoting Bishop v. Dresser Industries, Inc. (1999), 
134 Ohio App.3d 321, 324, 730 N.E.2d 1079. 
{¶ 11} In this case, the order addresses the pleading requirement of Civ.R. 
10(D)(2)(a).  Such an order does not meet the substantive definition of a 
provisional remedy contained in R.C. 2505.02(A)(3).  The order does not relate to 
any preliminary injunction, attachment, discovery of privileged matter, or 
suppression of evidence.  The order does not address any prima facie showings or 
findings pursuant to R.C. 2307.85, 2307.86, 2307.92, or 2307.93(A)(3).  The 
order likewise does not pertain to matters that meet the definition of “ancillary” in 
Muncie, supra. 
{¶ 12} Instead, the order arises from Manley’s pleading error.  In this 
regard, we find guidance in the principles applicable to Civ.R. 10(D)(1), which 
governs attachments to the pleadings.  Under that rule, a copy of an account or 
other written instrument is to be attached to a pleading when a claim or defense is 
based on the account or instrument.  If the account or instrument is not so 
attached, the reason for the omission must be provided.  Id.  In the event a party 
does not attach a copy of the required document and does not provide a reason for 
its omission, appellate courts have routinely held that the defect in procedure may 
be cured by a less drastic means than dismissal of the complaint.  Castle Hill 
Holdings, L.L.C. v. Al Hut, Inc., Cuyahoga App. No. 86442, 2006-Ohio-1353, ¶ 
25; Point Rental Co. v. Posani (1976), 52 Ohio App.2d 183, 6 O.O.3d 171, 368 
N.E.2d 1267. 
{¶ 13} We believe that the situation presented here under Civ.R. 10(D)(2), 
while not identical, is analogous.  Marsico presented a procedural challenge to the 
timing of the affidavit’s filing.  Despite Manley’s failure to file the affidavit 
contemporaneously with her complaint as required by Civ.R. 10(D)(2), and 
although Civ.R. 10(D)(2)(b) contemplates a motion for additional time to be filed 
contemporaneously with the complaint, Manley eventually provided the reason 
January Term, 2007 
5 
for the affidavit’s omission and the affidavit itself.  The trial court allowed 
Manley’s actions to cure the pleading defect in her complaint in a way that did not 
require the automatic dismissal of the complaint.  This conclusion is similar to the 
typical resolution of Civ.R. 10(D)(1) deficiencies.4  Castle Hill Holdings, L.L.C. 
v. Al Hut, Inc., 2006-Ohio-1353, ¶ 25. 
{¶ 14} Because the pleading deficiency can be cured without automatic 
dismissal of a complaint, we conclude that an order denying a motion to dismiss 
for the procedural pleading error of not filing an affidavit of merit 
contemporaneously with a complaint as required Civ.R. 10(D)(2) does not arise 
from an ancillary proceeding, does not deny a provisional remedy pursuant to 
R.C. 2505.02(A)(3), and is not final and appealable under R.C. 2505.02(B)(4).5   
{¶ 15} The judgment of the court of appeals, therefore, is affirmed. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, and LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Baker Fister, L.L.C., Wilburn L. Baker, and Anna S. Fister, for appellee. 
 
Reminger & Reminger Co., L.P.A., G. Michael Romanello, and Amy S. 
Thomas, for appellant. 
                                                 
4.  In fact, the trial court also appears to have recognized that Manley’s situation regarding the 
timing of the affidavit’s filing falls within a situation anticipated by the Civil Rule drafters.  The 
2007 Staff Notes to Civ.R. 10 state that a court must grant a plaintiff additional time to file an 
affidavit of merit when good cause is shown.  An example of “good cause” is a situation in which 
the limitations period is ending and plaintiff’s counsel has had insufficient time to “identify a 
qualified health care provider to conduct the necessary review of applicable medical records and 
prepare an affidavit.”  Id.   
 
5.  Because we hold that the trial court's order is not a final order, the issue of whether the trial 
court properly exercised its discretion in granting Manley the additional time in which to file her 
affidavit is not before us. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
Bricker & Eckler, L.L.P., Catherine Ballard, Anne Marie Sferra, and 
Daniel C. Gibson, urging reversal for amici curiae, Ohio Hospital Association, 
Ohio State Medical Association, and Ohio Osteopathic Association. 
______________________