Court Opinion

ID: 9882968
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-05 22:22:37.068095+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:05.020405
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Rastaturin v. Ohio State Veterinary Med. Ctr., 2023-Ohio-3262.]

                               IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO

 ALEXEY RASTATURIN                                      Case No. 2023-00273AD

         Plaintiff                                      Deputy Clerk Holly True Shaver

         v.                                             MEMORANDUM DECISION

 OHIO STATE VETERINARY MEDICAL
 CENTER

         Defendant

        {¶1}     Alexey Rastaturin (“plaintiff”) filed this claim against defendant, the Ohio
State Veterinary Medical Center (“OSUVMC”). Plaintiff asserted that on April 19, 2022,
defendant charged his bank account $1,991.68 without his consent for services that he
did not approve.
        {¶2}     Defendant filed an investigation report denying that the charge was incurred
without plaintiff’s informed consent. Defendant stated that plaintiff took his cat (“Ash”) to
its Dublin location for concerns about Ash’s weight loss, lack of appetite, and respiratory
issues. OSUVMC also stated that Ash had lumps and swelling on various parts of her
body. After its initial assessment, defendant stated that its employee explained to plaintiff
that Ash needed to be transported to its Internal Medicine Service for further diagnosis.
Defendant asserted that plaintiff signed an informed consent estimate (Estimate
#170927), which included Ash’s initial hospitalization, a diagnostic workup, and
stabilization measures, for between $2,000.00 and $3,000.00. OSUVMC stated that
plaintiff paid the deposit of $2,225.00 and the bill for the services ($863.51) at the Dublin
location on April 15, 2022.            OSUVMC stated that one of the doctors treating Ash
discussed the recommended course of treatment with plaintiff on April 18, 2022, and
plaintiff agreed to the treatment. Further, defendant asserted that an additional estimate
(Estimate #170985) was sent to plaintiff for between $1,710.50 and $2,021.25, which was
in addition to Estimate #170927. Defendant asserted that plaintiff did not express any
unwillingness to proceed with the treatment plan. Defendant asserted that plaintiff paid
Case No. 2023-00273AD                        -2-               MEMORANDUM DECISION

$1,991.38 on April 19, 2022, when Ash was discharged; this payment was taken over the
phone, which required plaintiff to read his credit card number to one of OSUVMC’s
employees. Defendant stated that on May 26, 2022, plaintiff paid the remaining charges
and has no outstanding balance. Plaintiff did not express any concerns about this bill
until May 31, 2022, after Ash was euthanized.       Defendant concluded that none of the
charged fees plaintiff paid to OSUVMC were without plaintiff’s consent.           Therefore,
judgment should be entered in favor of defendant.             Defendant attached several
documents in support of its investigation report including Ash’s medical records,
estimates for Ash’s treatment, an affidavit of Ash’s treating veterinarian, an email between
that veterinarian and plaintiff, the April 19, 2022 receipt, an affidavit of the OSUVMC
employee who took plaintiff’s credit card information for the April 19, 2022 transaction,
and invoices for the treatment provided.
       {¶3}   Plaintiff submitted a response to defendant's investigation report
reasserting his claim. Plaintiff stated that he did not provide explicit approval for any of
the credit card charges or the additional services beyond the initial deposit. Plaintiff
asserted the fact that he provided his credit card information over the phone does not
mean that he consented to any additional charges. Plaintiff alleged that this conduct was
a violation of the federal Electronic Fund Transfer Act, Regulation E 12 CFR sec. 1005
(“EFTA”) and R.C. 1345.01 et seq.
       {¶4}   Plaintiff’s claim sounds in contract law. In order to prevail on a claim for
breach of contract, plaintiff must “establish the existence of a contract, the failure without
legal excuse of the other party to perform when performance is due, and damages of loss
resulting from the breach.” Lucarell v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 152 Ohio St.3d 453,
2018-Ohio-15, 97 N.E.3d 458, ¶ 41.
       {¶5}   OSUVMC does not dispute that it had a contractual relationship with plaintiff
to perform veterinary services on Ash. The terms of the contract were set out in the
conversations between OSUVMC’s employees and plaintiff. Plaintiff contended that he
did not consent to the April 19, 2022 charge to his credit card or the services performed.
However, plaintiff did not provide any evidence, outside of his statements, of this. On the
other hand, OSUVMC provided an affidavit of Dr. Hannan Klein who averred that she
called plaintiff on April 18, 2022, to discuss further treatment. Dr. Klein also stated in her
Case No. 2023-00273AD                         -3-              MEMORANDUM DECISION

affidavit that another OSUVMC employee sent plaintiff an itemized estimate for the
treatment and that plaintiff verbally agreed to the course of treatment and estimate.
Based on this evidence, the terms of the contract between plaintiff and OSUVMC were
that OSUVMC would provide further treatment to Ash and plaintiff would pay for this
treatment. Therefore, plaintiff has failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence,
that OSUVMC breached the contract when it charged plaintiff for the treatment on
April 19, 2022.
       {¶6}     Assuming arguendo that plaintiff has asserted defendant violated the Ohio
Consumer Sales Practices Act (“CSPA”) under R.C. 1345 et seq, this court does not have
jurisdiction.   The CSPA was enacted to provide remedies to enforce prohibition of
deceptive and unconscionable acts and practices by “suppliers” in connection with
consumer transactions. Einhorn v. Ford Motor Co., 48 Ohio St.3d 27, 548 N.E.2d 933
(1990). A “supplier” is defined in R.C. 1345.01 (C), in part, as “a person engaged in the
business of effecting or soliciting consumer transactions.” R.C. 1345.01(B) includes
“government, governmental subdivision or agency” in the definition of person.
       {¶7}     R.C. 1345.04 states:
                The courts of common pleas, and municipal or county courts within
                their respective monetary jurisdiction, have jurisdiction over any
                supplier with respect to any act or practice in this state covered by
                sections 1345.01 to 1345.13 of the Revised Code, or with respect to
                any claim arising from a consumer transaction subject to such
                sections.
       {¶8}     R.C. 2743.02(A)(1) provides in part:
                The state hereby waives its immunity from liability * * * and consents
                to be sued, and have its liability determined, in the court of claims
                created in this chapter in accordance with the same rules of law
                applicable to suits between private parties * * *. To the extent that
                the state has previously consented to be sued, this chapter has no
                applicability.
       {¶9}     Therefore, if by some other prior statutory provision, the state has
consented to be sued, the Court of Claims is without jurisdiction. The state consented to
Case No. 2023-00273AD                          -4-            MEMORANDUM DECISION

be sued when the legislature enacted R.C. 1345, the CSPA, in 1972. The Court of Claims
statute was enacted in 1975. Therefore, based on the language of R.C. 2743.02(A)(1),
this court lacks jurisdiction to determine claims under the CSPA.
         {¶10} Therefore, plaintiff’s claim must fail.

 ALEXEY RASTATURIN                               Case No. 2023-00273AD

          Plaintiff                              Deputy Clerk Holly True Shaver

          v.                                     ENTRY OF ADMINISTRATIVE
                                                 DETERMINATION
 OHIO STATE VETERINARY MEDICAL
 CENTER

          Defendant

         {¶11} Having considered all the evidence in the claim file, and for the reasons set
forth in the memorandum decision filed concurrently herewith, judgment is rendered in
favor of defendant. Court costs are assessed against plaintiff.

                                              HOLLY TRUE SHAVER
                                              Deputy Clerk

Filed 8/11/23
Sent to S.C. Reporter 9/14/23