Author: Plymale & Dingus

Six years ago, 59-year-old May Hicks was struck by a vehicle as she walked out of Scioto Downs Casino and Racetrack in Southern Columbus. In addition to a shattered lower leg and ankle, May sustained head injuries and partial hearing loss. She was hospitalized for eight days, then confined to bed for four months, and for the remainder of her days she will need a cane to aid in walking. Her ankle will never function normally again. The Casino/Raceway refused to pay. Claiming they had done nothing wrong, they offered to pay only $15,000 to May for her injuries and medical bills.

In October 2019, Shawn Dingus and Mike Guluzian represented May in a jury trial against the driver and Scioto Downs. After four days of testimony, the jury found both the driver and Scioto Downs responsible for causing May’s injuries and awarded her the sum of $3,925,000 in damages. The jury found the driver negligent for failing to yield the right-of-way to May and found Scioto Downs responsible for failing to protect its customers, from whom it makes millions of dollars each year. Specifically, the evidence showed that Scioto Downs funneled pedestrians to a dangerous area leading away from the casino to its parking lot, failing to erect any signs warning drivers they were approaching a crosswalk or to take other actions to protect its customers once they left the casino. Compounding these failures, the casino also chose to park a shuttle bus on the roadway that partially obstructed the view of both drivers and pedestrians. These failures played a significant role in the events that would forever change May’s life.

Unfortunately, Ohio law will prevent May from receiving what a jury of eight Ohio citizens determined she deserved. In the end, May will likely receive only one tenth the of the actual verdict amount.

Why? Tort reform.

You may have heard it mentioned in the news once or twice. It sounds like something an older British gentleman wearing a powdered wig might declare in Parliament.

In reality, it’s a very American issue, and it’s costing deserving Ohioans like May Hicks millions in rightful compensation. Which is why at Plymale & Dingus we call it “tort deform.”

Tort reform is politician talk, worded to convince you, the public, that substantial jury verdicts for serious injuries need to be reined in. So, legislation was passed by the Ohio legislature in 2005 which limits the amount of damages an injured person can receive to $250,000 in most cases, up to an absolute maximum of $350,000 where the injured person’s medical expenses exceed $120,000.

It’s a win for large businesses like Scioto Downs and insurance companies that go to trial knowing they can’t be held liable for more than $350,000—a drop in the bucket compared to what they should be accountable for.

It’s a loss for May Hicks, a beloved figure in her community who runs a small market that’s a favorite for local fireman, police, and veterans.

And it’s a loss for democracy. Trial by jury is an essential part of our democratic system and, in fact, that right is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. Trial by jury does not always yield a just result, but experience teaches us that citizen participation in the process of administering justice is part of the glue that keeps us on the pathway of democracy. The Legislature’s so called “Tort Reform” nullifies the jury’s verdict and renders this and many such jury verdicts nearly meaningless, essentially saying that juries can’t be trusted to decide how to compensate injured victims. Of course, the Ohio “tort reform” says nothing about very low or inadequate jury verdicts. It addresses and greatly reduces only verdicts for the most severely injured. Those citizens who are most deserving of substantial money damages are now, by law, limited in the recovery of those damages. In our opinion, in passing this law, the Ohio legislature has catered to the desires of big business and sent the message that Ohio citizens are too dumb to be trusted with deciding what is just and fair. Instead, the legislature has declared that they are superior to those who voted them into office. Moreover, the imposed limits on damage recovery apply to all jury verdicts without the legislators having heard one word of the evidence in the case. In doing so, our legislature has also sent another message to Ohio citizens: that the bottom line of big businesses is of more importance to them than the safety and welfare of its own citizens.

Tort reform affects every liability case in Ohio, save only the most extreme cases (paraplegia, loss of a limb, death, etc.) and it has been enacted and enabled by legislators in the Ohio statehouse who have failed to amend it in any serious manner over the last 14 years.

Thanks to this law and the legislators who refuse to abandon this incursion on our right to trial by jury, injured Ohioans, like May Hicks, are not only being deprived of millions of dollars, they are also being deprived of their Constitutional right to trial by jury. Instead, as in many autocratic countries, this part of our Constitutionally protected “Right to Trial by Jury” is no longer “inviolate.”

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments in four same sex marriage cases this April. The justices will decide whether to uphold bans in Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee, and Kentucky. The court had previously declined to decide the issue because the circuit courts that had previously issued rulings all ruled against the ban. With the 6th Circuit’s decision, the federal appellate courts are no longer unanimous in their decisions. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to hear these cases comes on the heels of Florida’s recent January 6th recognition of same sex marriage, the 36th such state to do so, and the critical questioning of state bans in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi.

If the ban on same sex marriage is lifted, insurance companies will likely be required to extend insurance benefits to same sex spouses. The decision, however, will likely have no effect on the ability of self-insured plans to implement a plan-specific definition of “spouse.” While employers may use their own terms to define spouse, enacting a definition of spouse that is at odds with state and federal law may expose those companies to lawsuits under the state and federal anti-discriminatory statutes. Many expect a decision by June of this year.

Alabama has become the 37th state to support legalizing gay marriage as an Alabama Federal District Court has ordered the issuance of marriage licenses for same sex couples on Monday, despite heavy opposition from the state’s chief judge, Roy S. Moore. This comes following his eleven-hour effort to order local judges to disregard the ruling legalizing gay marriage within the state. “Effective immediately, no Probate Judge of the State of Alabama nor any agent or employee of any Alabama Probate Judge shall issue or recognize a marriage license that is inconsistent with [state law],”Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy S. Moore said in an order.

The U.S. Supreme Court denied Alabama’s request to stop the issuance of marriage licenses to same sex couples as the District Court ruled last month that the state must issue marriage licenses starting Monday, February 9th. Moore wrote the order alleging that the ruling violates the U.S. and Alabama Constitutions. However, the move drew quick condemnation among legal experts and human rights activists alike as the Federal Court’s decision superseded the state court decision and Moore was in no position to disregard the order. This move drew comparisons to the state’s decision to block the implementation of a federal order to integrate the University of Alabama in 1963.

In March of 2011, Plaintiff Gerri Thomas, a licensed practical nurse, was injured in an automobile collision when a truck driven by Defendant Nicholas Pisoni struck her while she traveled at approximately 40 mph. At the scene of the accident, she was placed in a neck collar and backboard for immobilization and transported to the hospital. Once there, it was discovered that the force of the collision broke the Plaintiff’s neck at the C-6 vertebrae. Plaintiff’s doctors ordered that she wear a hard cervical collar to allow the bones to heal. Unfortunately, Plaintiff experienced increasing pain and was first treated with steroid injections but eventually required surgery. Due to the injury, Plaintiff testified that she lost wages totaling over $9,400.00, out-of-pocket medical expenses of $4,467.00, and incurred medical bills of approximately $37,000.00.

After hearing all of the evidence, a Stark County jury awarded Plaintiff just $2,114.11. Of this amount, $700.00 was for lost wages, $214.11 was reimbursement for her cervical collar, and $1,200.00 was for pain and suffering. Plaintiff requested a new trial arguing that jury’s verdict was inadequate and contrary to both the law and the facts presented at trial. This request was initially denied but was later granted on appeal by the 5th District Court of Appeals.

The Appellate Court found that “[t]he jury’s award did not fully compensate [Plaintiff] and denied her justice.” Thomas v. Pisoni, 2015-Ohio-376, ¶ 35 (5th Dist. Stark). The court went on to state that the “jury’s verdict was inadequate because there was no evidence disputing the severity of the collision; no evidence, expert or otherwise, disputing the collision neither solely caused appellant’s fractured neck and subsequent surgery; nor disputing the collision resulted in limited life functions, pain and discomfort.” Id. The Court concluded that the damages award could not be reconciled with the “uncontroverted evidence” and was “against the manifest weight of the evidence.” Id. at ¶37. Let us hope that Ms. Thomas’ next trial fully and adequately compensates her for the injuries and delivers the justice she was denied at her first trial.

The staff at Plymale & Dingus would like to congratulate both Shawn Dingus and Ron Plymale for being named premier attorneys in the Central Ohio region by Columbus CEO magazine. Columbus CEO holds an annual rating feature based on a rating algorithm used by Avvo, one of the top attorney review sites in the nation, to determine its highly exclusive list.

This year’s top lawyers were rated at 8 and above on Avvo’s ten point scale and were subjected to only one or two primary practices for each lawyers based alphabetically. Both Shawn and Ron were selected for their work in representing clients for personal injury cases. Once again congratulations to Mr. Plymale and Mr. Dingus and we look forward to continuing success in 2015!

If You Have Case to Discuss, Contact Our Firm Today to Schedule a Free, Consultation.

Clients often ask me to explain the reason that contested divorce cases and contested custody actions take so long to resolve. While there is a myriad of reasons to explain the protracted duration of divorce and custody cases, the primary culprit is usually the contested nature of the case itself. While an agreement can usually be approved by the court within sixty days, disputed cases take much longer to reach a conclusion. Those reasons include the need to formally serve the other party with a copy of the lawsuit (called a complaint) and a summons, to which the other party has up to twenty-eight (28) days to respond, which can often take more than six weeks to complete.

Steps of a Contested Divorce or Custody

Next, at least one of the parties usually requests the court to issue temporary orders. That process requires an initial hearing, usually scheduled six to eight weeks after the filing of the complaint, at which the parties discuss the possible resolution of all disputed issues. If no agreement is reached, the assigned Magistrate will order the parties and their attorneys to submit sworn affidavits usually within two to three weeks following the hearing. If the case involves children, the court will usually also appoint a guardian ad litem (GAL) to represent the best interests of the children, and will often delay the submission of affidavits to allow the GAL an opportunity to conduct an investigation. After submission of the affidavits, the court usually issues temporary orders three to four weeks later. By that time, the case is already three months old, and usually older if a GAL is involved.

The parties then often elect to conduct discovery, which can come in the form of written questions to be answered by the other party, a request for the other party to produce documents (e.g. financial documents, photographs, correspondence, etc.), and the deposition of the parties (sworn testimony recorded by a stenographer) . This process can take three to six months to complete, depending on the complexity of the disputed issues. The parties may also need to hire expert witnesses to value assets (e.g. appraisers, accountants, etc.) or to provide expert testimony relating to the children (e.g. physicians, psychologists, etc.)

After all of these tasks are completed, including many others that I do not have the space to include in this article, the attorneys will need to prepare the case for trial, which will initially require scheduling time on the judge’s docket to actually try the case, which in turn will depend on the judge’s availability and the size of his/her docket. At any given time, most judges have hundreds of cases pending before them, many of which will have been pending longer than your case. The number of days scheduled by the court for trial depends on the nature and complexity of each case. The more complex the case, the longer it will take to complete.

Average Time a Custody Case Lasts

On average, a case involving custody will take at least three days to complete, oftentimes requiring seven days or more. To prepare for the trial, which is subject to the same rules as the trials you see on television, the attorneys will need to identify and prepare witnesses, gather and organize physical evidence (e.g. financial documents, photographs) prepare balance sheets of the parties assets and liabilities, prepare child support worksheets, and a host of other tasks that are too numerous to list here. At the end of the presentation of evidence, the judge will usually take the matter under advisement and issue a decision several weeks later.

As you can see, contested actions require a significant investment of time, designed to both protect the parties and to ensure that the court is provided with all relevant evidence to allow it to issue a decision. Of course, should the parties ultimately reach an agreement during the case, no trial is necessary and the case can be scheduled for an uncontested hearing.

If You Have Case to Discuss, Contact Our Firm Today to Schedule a Free, Consultation.