Court Opinion

ID: 9398276
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-30 18:09:13.330233+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:31.869330
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Ashtabula Cty. Med. Ctr. v. Scruggs, 2023-Ohio-1795.]

                 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                           ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                               ASHTABULA COUNTY

ASHTABULA COUNTY MEDICAL                               CASE NO. 2022-A-0061
CENTER,

                 Plaintiff-Appellee,                   Civil Appeal from the
                                                       Court of Common Pleas
        - vs -

BRIAN O. SCRUGGS,                                      Trial Court No. 2021 CV 00214

                 Defendant-Appellant.

                                              OPINION

                                       Decided: May 30, 2023
                                        Judgment: Affirmed

Dan A. Morell, Jr. and John J. Schneider, Dan Morell & Associates, LLC, 200 Spectrum
Office Building, 6060 Rockside Woods Boulevard, N., Suite 200, Independence, OH
44131 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).

Brian O. Scruggs, pro se, 7280 Skyline Drive East, Apt. 105, Columbus, OH 43235
(Defendant-Appellant).

EUGENE A. LUCCI, J.

        {¶1}     Appellant, Brian O. Scruggs, appeals the judgment entered in favor of

appellee, Ashtabula County Medical Center (“the Medical Center”), in the amount of

$4,692.00 together with interest from June 19, 2022. We affirm.

        {¶2}     On June 1, 2021, the Medical Center filed a complaint against Scruggs

seeking judgment in the amount of $9,436.09, which the Medical Center maintained

represented the amount of unpaid medical bills for services provided to Scruggs’ child as

a minor. Thereafter, Scruggs filed a document captioned “Rebuke Extortion for Money,”
wherein he appears to maintain that the child’s mother, his ex-wife, was responsible for

any unpaid balance due to Scruggs’ payments of child support to her and her receipt of

their child’s social security benefits paid to her on the child’s behalf due to Scruggs’

disability.

        {¶3}   The Medical Center moved for judgment on the pleadings, and Scruggs

submitted filings in opposition. The trial court overruled the motion in an entry dated

September 10, 2021. Therein, the court noted that the Medical Center had originally filed

suit in a previous case, in which it named both Scruggs and his ex-wife as defendants.

Due to lack of service on Scruggs, the matter was dismissed against him, the case

proceeded against his ex-wife, and the Medical Center obtained judgment against her.

However, the ex-wife filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection, resulting in a stay in that

case. The Medical Center then filed the present complaint against Scruggs. The court

concluded that Scruggs’ argument regarding child support and social security payments

made to the ex-wife overlooked that the child support order required him to pay 50% of

the child’s medical bills. However, the court concluded that material factual issues existed

as to whether Scruggs was given notice of the unpaid medical bills, when the notice was

given, and if he had been prejudiced by the delay. Accordingly, the court overruled the

Medical Center’s motion.

        {¶4}   The case then proceeded before a magistrate. At a pretrial before the

magistrate on December 3, 2021, counsel for the Medical Center failed to appear. On

the same date, the court scheduled the parties for mediation. Thereafter, Scruggs moved

to dismiss for failure to prosecute, and the Medical Center filed a brief in opposition. The

court overruled the motion to dismiss. On February 23, 2022, the Medical Center filed

                                             2

Case No. 2022-A-0061
an amended prayer for relief recognizing that Scruggs had filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy

on March 2, 2015, and modifying its prayer for relief to eliminate the accounts discharged

by the bankruptcy to request judgment in the principal amount of $3,582.84 plus interest

and the costs of the action.

        {¶5}    Subsequently, the parties attended court-sponsored mediation. Scruggs

then moved to dismiss based upon a statute of limitations argument, which the Medical

Center opposed. The Medical Center sought to enforce a settlement agreement that it

maintained was reached through mediation on March 24, 2022. The Medical Center

attached a copy of the purported handwritten agreement to its motion to enforce. The

agreement provides: “Mediation held. Agreement reached to settle the debt for $2,000.

First payment will be for $225.45 & the rest of balance will be paid over 9 more months

with the total amount paid w/in 10 months. Payment document/agreement will be drafted

& circulated by 3/29/22. Questions & language for dismissal will be discussed on phone

mediation call 3/30/22 @ 10[:]30 am[.]” The agreement is signed by counsel for the

Medical Center and Scruggs.              Thereafter, Scruggs again requested the case be

dismissed, maintaining, in part, that counsel for the Medical Center failed to attend the

3/30/22 telephone mediation as scheduled.

        {¶6}    In an order dated April 25, 2022, the court granted the Medical Center’s

motion to enforce the settlement agreement and overruled Scruggs’ motions to dismiss.

In its entry, the court noted that the matter came on for status conference/hearing on April

12, 2022.1 Based upon this hearing, the court determined that the parties agreed to settle

1. Scruggs had moved for an extension of time to file the record until October 14, 2022. In his motion, he
stated that he had been unaware of his “responsibility towards having to request the transcripts from the
court reporter” until after he reviewed this court’s local rules. This court granted the extension, and the
                                                    3

Case No. 2022-A-0061
this matter for $2,000.00 and had entered into a handwritten settlement agreement

reflecting same. The court noted that “[t]he testimony in this hearing established that the

parties intended to prepare a dismissal entry which would be premised on the settlement

agreement entered into on the 24th and signed by the parties.” The court further noted

that it had questioned Scruggs regarding whether he had signed that agreement, and he

acknowledged that he had done so. The entry indicates that Scruggs informed the court

that he had unilaterally repudiated the agreement, but he had not provided the court with

any authority permitting him to rescind. The court granted the Medical Center’s motion

to enforce the settlement agreement, overruled Scruggs’ motions to dismiss, and ordered

counsel for the Medical Center to prepare a judgment entry.

        {¶7}     On June 7, 2022, the magistrate issued an order noting that a judgment

entry had not yet been prepared in this case. The magistrate granted counsel 30 days to

submit an appropriate judgment entry and ordered that, if such an entry was not entered

and presented for journalization, then the court would prepare and journalize an entry

dismissing all proceedings.

        {¶8}     On July 11, 2022, the trial court approved a judgment entry. The judgment

entry enters judgment in favor of the Medical Center for $4,692.00, which includes

statutory interest from March 6, 2015 through June 19, 2022, together with statutory

interest from June 19, 2022, through satisfaction of judgment, and costs of this action.2

record was transmitted on October 14, 2022. However, no transcript of the April 12, 2022 status
conference/hearing was transmitted with the record, and no motion to supplement the record with the
transcript has been made. A review of the trial court’s docket indicates that a transcript was filed in the trial
court on October 18, 2022. Nonetheless, neither party has moved to supplement the record with the
transcript. See App.R. 9.

2. It is unclear as to why judgment was entered in favor of the Medical Center, as the trial court determined
that the parties’ testimony at the hearing “established that the parties intended to prepare a dismissal entry
                                                       4

Case No. 2022-A-0061
However, the judgment entry provides that if Scruggs makes timely payments of the

$2,000.00 as the parties had agreed, interest would be waived, and the $2,000.00 would

satisfy the judgment in full.

        {¶9}    On August 5, 2022, Scruggs noticed an appeal. Scruggs’ appellate brief

does not specifically set forth any assigned errors.            Instead, his brief contains a “Table

of Contents and Assignment of Error” page that sets forth the following:

                1.      Statement Case: Not showing up for pre-trial
                2.    Statement Facts: No billing to me or my address from
                2010-2018
                3.    Moral Defense Argument: Violation of due process,
                dismissal for failure to prosecute 08/29/2018 Case No. 2018
                CV 00017
                4.      Conclusion: Timeline for document entry

        {¶10} The above four subjects, despite their titles, appear to raise four distinct

issues. First, Scruggs appears to take issue with the Medical Center’s counsel’s failure

to appear at the pretrial. Second, Scruggs maintains that he did not receive billing from

the Medical Center for the medical care of the child from 2010 through 2018. Third,

Scruggs argues that his payments of child support to his ex-wife and the social security

payments made to her for their child should have been used to pay the Medical Center.

which would be premised on the settlement agreement entered into on the 24th * * *.” However, Scruggs
has not challenged this aspect of the judgment entry, and, as discussed in the previous footnote, no
transcript of the hearing was transmitted on appeal. It is an “appellant’s duty to provide a transcript for
appellate review and [an] appellant’s burden to show error by reference to matters in the record.” Kirtland
v. Neff, 11th Dist. Lake No. 98-L-245, 2000 WL 655435, *2 (May 19, 2000), citing Knapp v. Edwards
Laboratories (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 197, 199, 400 N.E.2d 384 (1980).

                                                    5

Case No. 2022-A-0061
Fourth, Scruggs maintains that the Medical Center failed to submit the judgment entry to

the trial court within the time permitted by the magistrate.

       {¶11} Initially, we note that the first three issues would generally be waived as a

consequence of entering into a settlement agreement. See Longo v. Longo, 11th Dist.

Geauga No. 2013-G-3175, 2014-Ohio-4880, ¶ 11-12. However, in this case, although

the trial court concluded that Scruggs entered into the settlement agreement at mediation

and the parties intended to dismiss this matter based on the settlement, the July 11, 2022

judgment entry grants judgment to the Medical Center, instead of dismissing the action,

and provides it will accept payment of the $2,000.00 as agreed to satisfy the judgment in

full. Although Scruggs does not argue any error with this aspect of the judgment entry,

the handwritten agreement does not indicate that judgment would be granted to the

Medical Center. We cannot discern whether the parties agreed to this aspect of the

judgment at the hearing, as no transcript has been submitted. Therefore, we conclude

that waiver would be inappropriately applied under these particular circumstances.

Accordingly, we proceed to address the issues raised by Scruggs.

        {¶12} With respect to the first issue, Scruggs appears to argue that the case

should have been dismissed based upon the Medical Center’s non-appearance at the

December 3, 2022 pretrial. However, as noted by the trial court, in Scruggs’ motion to

dismiss on these grounds, he cited another court’s local rule in support. Scruggs does

not advance any authority in his appellate brief in support of dismissal on the basis of

failure to prosecute where the plaintiff fails to appear at a pretrial hearing. We are aware

of no authority mandating dismissal for failure of a plaintiff to appear at a hearing. To the

contrary, dismissal due to a failure to prosecute is a harsh sanction that is appropriate

                                             6

Case No. 2022-A-0061
only where the plaintiff is “negligent, irresponsible, contumacious, or dilatory.” Holt v.

Ayers, 127 Ohio App.3d 535, 537, 713 N.E.2d 472, 473 (9th Dist.1998), citing Ina v.

George Fraam & Sons, Inc., 85 Ohio App.3d 229, 231, 619 N.E.2d 501, 502 (9th

Dist.1993); and Schreiner v. Karson, 52 Ohio App.2d 219, 223, 369 N.E.2d 800 (9th

Dist.1997). Accordingly, Scruggs’ apparent argument regarding the Medical Center’s

failure to appear at the pretrial lacks merit.

       {¶13} With respect to his second argument, Scruggs appears to contend that

judgment to the Medical Center was improper due to the Medical Center’s purported

failure to send him billing from 2010-2018, and that his ex-wife was responsible for

payment of the child’s medical bills due to her receipt of child support and social security

benefits. However, Scruggs again does not support his arguments with any authority.

R.C. 3103.03(A) provides in relevant part that “[t]he biological or adoptive parent of a

minor child must support the parent’s minor children out of the parent’s property or by the

parent’s labor.” R.C. 3103.03(D) provides:

              If a parent neglects to support the parent’s minor child in
              accordance with this section and if the minor child in question
              is unemancipated, any other person, in good faith, may supply
              the minor child with necessaries for the support of the minor
              child and recover the reasonable value of the necessaries
              supplied from the parent who neglected to support the minor
              child.

       {¶14} This court has held that the parents’ divorce decree and post-decree orders

control the parents’ obligations between each other but do not control a third party’s suit

for recovery of medical bills incurred on behalf of their child.     Laurelwood Hosp. v.

Lorenzo, 11th Dist. Lake No. 93-L-063, 1993 WL 548530, *4 (Dec. 17, 1993).

                                                 7

Case No. 2022-A-0061
Accordingly, the Medical Center’s action is not affected by orders entered in Scruggs’ and

his ex-wife’s divorce action. Therefore, Scruggs’ second argument lacks merit.

         {¶15} With respect to his third argument, Scruggs appears to maintain that his

dismissal from a prior suit should have precluded the present suit. During the proceedings

in the trial court, as set forth above, the parties acknowledged that Scruggs was named

as a defendant, along with his ex-wife, in a complaint previously filed by the Medical

Center for recovery of the child’s medical bills at issue. However, Scruggs was dismissed

from that suit due to lack of service. Such a dismissal is otherwise than on the merits,

and thus does not preclude the instant action. Civ.R. 4(E); Civ.R. 41(B)(4).

         {¶16} Next, within Scruggs’ third argument, he again raises the issue that his ex-

wife should have been solely responsible for the child’s medical bills. However, we have

addressed this issue in response to Scruggs’ second argument above.

         {¶17} Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Scruggs’ third argument is without

merit.

         {¶18} With respect to his final argument, Scruggs relies on the magistrate’s June

7, 2022 order, requiring the Medical Center to prepare the judgment entry within thirty

days. As set forth in our recitation of the procedural history above, this order indicated

that the proceedings may be dismissed if the proposed entry was not timely submitted.

Scruggs maintains that the entry was not filed within 30 days, relying on the July 11, 2022

timestamp appearing on the entry. However, the Medical Center maintains that the

judgment was submitted to the trial court within 30 days. We have no way of determining

from the record when the proposed judgment entry was submitted by the Medical Center

to the court for review, as the timestamp reflects only that the signed copy of the entry

                                             8

Case No. 2022-A-0061
was filed with the clerk on July 11, 2022. Regardless, even if this court could conclude

that the judgment entry was filed five days late, such tardiness would not mandate

dismissal of the action. Accordingly, Scruggs’ final argument lacks merit.

      {¶19} The judgment is affirmed.

JOHN J. EKLUND, P.J.,

MATT LYNCH, J.,

concur.

                                            9

Case No. 2022-A-0061