Mercer Health v. Welling , 2014 Ohio 5626 ( 2014 )

[Cite as Mercer Health v. Welling, 2014-Ohio-5626.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
MERCER COUNTY
MERCER HEALTH,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 10-14-05
v.
JAMES A. WELLING, O P I N I ON
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from Celina Municipal Court
Trial Court No. 13CVF00783
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: December 22, 2014
APPEARANCES:
James A. Welling, Appellant
Jeffery G. Williams for Appellee
Case No. 10-14-05
SHAW, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, James A. Welling (“Welling”), appeals the April
15, 2014 judgment of the Celina Municipal Court granting the motion for
summary judgment filed by plaintiff-appellee, Mercer Health. As a result of the
trial court’s decision, Mercer Health received a judgment against Welling in the
amount of $8,228.18 plus interest for medical services provided to Welling.
{¶2} On November 12, 2013, Mercer Health filed a “complaint for money
on account for $8,228.18,” in which Mercer Health alleged that Welling was
indebted to it on an account for medical services rendered. Mercer Health
attached a copy of a two-page itemized bill reflecting the cost of the services
performed as the result of Welling’s visit to Mercer County Community Hospital
on August 4, 2012. Mercer Health also filed the affidavit of Stacy L. Litsey, an
agent for Mercer Health, verifying the existence of Welling’s account for
necessary medical services provided on August 4, 2012.
{¶3} The record reflects that on November 12, 2013, proof of service of the
complaint was filed with the trial court.
{¶4} On December 10, 2013, Welling, pro se, filed a “letter” notifying
Mercer Health that he disputed the claim and requested further “validation” of the
debt. (Doc. No. 7). It is notable that in this “letter” Welling did not dispute that
-2-
Case No. 10-14-05
he received the medical services at Mercer County Community Hospital on
August 4, 2012 as reflected in the itemized medical bill.
{¶5} On January 21, 2014, Welling filed a document entitled “Statement of
Issues Presented by Affidavit.” (Doc. No. 9). In this document, Welling
requested, among other things, documents relating to Mercer Health’s 2012 and
2013 tax records and information confirming that Mercer Health’s attorney is
authorized to practice law and explaining the nature of counsel’s association with
his client, Mercer Health.
{¶6} On January 23, 2014, Mercer Health filed a “Notice of Discovery”
informing the trial court that it had submitted “Requests for Admissions and
Interrogatories” to Welling. (Doc. No. 10).
{¶7} On February 28, 2014, Welling filed a “Request for Entry of Default,”
which was accompanied by a self-serving affidavit seeking a default judgment
against Mercer Health for its failure to respond to his “letter” requesting
“validation” of the debt filed December 10, 2013. (Doc. No. 11).
{¶8} On March 5, 2014, Mercer Health filed a “Motion to Compel”
requesting the trial court issue an order compelling Welling’s compliance with the
discovery submitted to him on January 21, 2014.
{¶9} On March 17, 2014, the trial court held a hearing on Welling’s
“Request for Default” and Mercer Health’s “Motion to Compel.” The trial court
-3-
Case No. 10-14-05
granted Mercer Health’s “Motion to Compel” and ordered Welling to answer the
submitted discovery. The trial court also overruled Welling’s “Request for
Default” finding no grounds supporting his request.
{¶10} On March 26, 2014, Welling filed “Objections on Judges Order,”
alleging the trial court erred in overruling his “Request for Default.”
{¶11} On March 27, 2014, Welling filed his answers to Mercer Health’s
interrogatories. Again, Welling did not deny that he received medical services
from Mercer Health on August 4, 2012 nor did he provide any relevant
information regarding the action on an account claim filed by Mercer Health.
{¶12} On April 1, 2014, Mercer Health filed a motion for summary
judgment, asserting that there was no genuine issue of material fact and claiming
that it is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. In support of its
motion, Mercer Health attached the affidavit of Kristine Siefring, the director and
custodian of patient accounts for Mercer Health.
{¶13} On April 4, 2014, Welling filed an “Objection” to Mercer Health’s
motion for summary judgment. In his “Objection,” Welling failed to make any
argument asserting the existence of a genuine issue of material fact and failed to
submit any relevant evidence demonstrating that summary judgment in Mercer
Health’s favor would not be appropriate.
-4-
Case No. 10-14-05
{¶14} On April 15, 2014, the trial court granted Mercer Health’s motion for
summary judgment. Welling subsequently filed this appeal, asserting the
following assignment of error.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING THE MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
MERCER HEALTH (JEFFERY G. WILLIAMS).
{¶15} In his sole assignment of error, Welling challenges the trial court’s
decision granting summary judgment in favor of Mercer Health.
{¶16} An appellate court reviews a grant of summary judgment de novo,
without any deference to the trial court. Conley–Slowinski v. Superior Spinning &
Stamping Co., 128 Ohio App. 3d 360, 363 (6th Dist.1998). A grant of summary
judgment will be affirmed only when the requirements of Civ.R. 56(C) are met.
This requires the moving party to establish: (1) that there are no genuine issues of
material fact, (2) that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law,
and (3) that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion and that conclusion
is adverse to the non-moving party, said party being entitled to have the evidence
construed most strongly in his favor. Civ.R. 56(C); see Horton v. Harwick Chem.
Corp., 73 Ohio St. 3d 679, 1995–Ohio–286, paragraph three of the syllabus.
{¶17} The party moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of
identifying the basis for its motion in order to allow the opposing party a
“meaningful opportunity to respond.” Mitseff v. Wheeler, 38 Ohio St. 3d 112,
-5-
Case No. 10-14-05
syllabus (1988). The moving party also bears the burden of demonstrating the
absence of a genuine issue of material fact as to an essential element of the case.
Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St. 3d 280, 292, 1996-Ohio-107. Once the moving party
demonstrates that he is entitled to summary judgment, the burden shifts to the
nonmoving party to produce evidence on any issue which that party bears the
burden of production at trial. See Civ.R. 56(E).
{¶18} On appeal, Welling claims that the trial court’s decision granting
summary judgment in Mercer Health’s favor was not supported by the evidence in
the record. This lawsuit involves Mercer Health’s claim against Welling for
money due on an account. “An account is an ‘unsettled claim or demand by one
person against another, based upon a transaction creating a debtor and creditor
relation[ship] between the parties.’ ” Gray Printing Co. v. Blushing Brides,
L.L.C., 10th Dist. No. 05AP–646, 2006-Ohio–1656, ¶ 21, quoting Am. Sec. Serv.,
Inc. v. Baumann, 32 Ohio App. 2d 237, 242 (10th Dist.1972). In order to establish
a prima facie case for money owed on an account, a plaintiff must demonstrate:
[T]he existence of an account, including that the account is in the
name of the party charged, and it must also establish (1) a
beginning balance of zero, or a sum that can qualify as an
account stated, or some other provable sum; (2) listed items, or
an item, dated and identifiable by number or otherwise,
representing charges, or debits, and credits; and (3)
summarization by means of a running or developing balance, or
an arrangement of beginning balance and items that permits the
calculation of the amount claimed to be due.
-6-
Case No. 10-14-05
Dept. Stores Natl. Bank v. McGee, 7th Dist. No. 12 MA 103, 2013–Ohio–894, ¶
16.
{¶19} In the present case, a review of the evidence submitted by Mercer
Health indicates that the billing statement attached to the complaint included
Welling’s name identified as “Patient” and “Guarantor,” an itemized list of each
charge and the nature of the medical services provided on August 4, 2012, and the
total amount of the charges, $8,228.18. The billing statement reflects that no
insurance carrier was involved in the transaction and that no payment was made
on the account. Mercer Health also submitted, as part of its motion for summary
judgment, the affidavit of the director and custodian of patient accounts for Mercer
Health who verified the existence of the account; that the account reflected
charges for necessary medical services received by Welling; that the charges for
the medical services were usual and customary charges for the services rendered;
and that there was an outstanding balance on the account of $8,228.18, which
remained due and owing.
{¶20} The only evidence Welling submitted during the course of the case
were his responses to Mercer Health’s “Requests for Admissions and
Interrogatories,” in which he provided the following answers:
Interrogatory #1: What is your full name, address, social
security number, date of birth, and current place of employment
and position of employment?
-7-
Case No. 10-14-05
Answer: (1) What name do you want, the name my friends call
me, or the name my foes call me? Please make a Declaratory
Judgment; (2) Wherever I am at any time is where I live as I live
within my skin wherever I happen to be at that time; (3) 866-
964-1723;1 (4) I can not swear to nothing as I was incompetent at
that time and did not know anything; and (5) I am a Private
Contractor, not an EMPLOYEE.
Interrogatory #2: Why do you feel that you are not liable for the
necessary medical services provided to you by Mercer Health as
stated in the attached exhibit to Plaintiff’s Complaint?
Answer: I James Anthony; Welling2 deny all Exhibits that are
not certified or a signed copy or it is inadmissible for evidence
under Rule 803(6) and 901(B)(10), under Rules of Evidence of
the Ohio Supreme Court.
Interrogatory #3: What was the reason medical services were
provided you [sic] on August 4, 2012 by Mercer Health as stated
in the attached exhibit to Plaintiff’s Complaint?
Answer: I James Anthony; Welling deny all Exhibits that are
not certified or a signed copy or it is inadmissible for evidence
under Rule 803(6) and 901(B)(10), under Rules of Evidence of
the Ohio Supreme Court.
(Doc Nos. 13 and 19).
{¶21} Civil Rule 56(E) states, in pertinent part,
When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported
as provided in this rule, an adverse party may not rest upon the
mere allegations or denials of the party’s pleadings, but the
party’s response, by affidavit or as otherwise provided in this
rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine
issue for trial. If the party does not so respond, summary
judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against the party.
1
This is the phone number for the Social Security Administration office.
2
Welling signed all his documents James Anthony; Welling, Ohio National.
-8-
Case No. 10-14-05
{¶22} The record demonstrates that, other than initially disputing Mercer
Health’s claim in his “letter,” Welling did not set forth specific facts showing that
there was a genuine issue for trial—specifically that he was not the person who
received the medical services listed in the itemized bill on August 4, 2012, and
that the amount on the account remained due and owing.3 If the nonmoving party
does not respond or identify specific facts to demonstrate a genuine issue of
material fact, summary judgment is proper. Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St. 3d 280,
293, 1996–Ohio–107.
{¶23} Consequently, because Welling neglected to present any evidence to
challenge Mercer Health’s showing that he was responsible for the amount billed
for the necessary medical services he received on August 4, 2012, he failed to
meet his reciprocal burden under Civ.R. 56(E) and thus failed to demonstrate that
any genuine issue of material fact existed to defeat summary judgment.
Accordingly, the assignment of error is overruled and the summary judgment of
the trial court is affirmed.
Judgment Affirmed
WILLAMOWSKI, P.J. and ROGERS, J., concur.
3
We also note that Welling made no claim regarding the “reasonableness” of the charges for the services
stated in the medical bill attached to Mercer Health’s compliant. Nevertheless, absent any evidence to the
contrary, the itemized medical bill is prima-facie evidence of the reasonableness of the charges. See R.C.
R.C. 2317.421; see also, Riverside Methodist Hosp. v. Phillips, 3rd Dist. Hardin No. 6-12-14, 2013-Ohio-
423, ¶ 11.
-9-