MetroHealth Med. Ctr. v. Kaiser Found. Hosp. - Ohio Supreme Court Opinion - Ohio Supreme Court Decision

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Ohio Court Cases and Opinions - Ohio Legal Research
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -RESEARCH

This court case was taken from the web sites of the Ohio Courts. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of
Ohio are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27,
1992, pursuant to a pilot project implemented by Chief Justice
Thomas J. Moyer.
Please call any errors to the attention of the Reporter's
Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Attention: Walter S.
Kobalka, Reporter, or Deborah J. Whitten, Administrative
Assistant. Tel.: (614) 466-4961; in Ohio 1-800-826-9010.
Your comments on this pilot project are also welcome.
NOTE: Corrections may be made by the Supreme Court to the
full texts of the opinions after they have been released
electronically to the public. The reader is therefore advised
to check the bound volumes of Ohio St.3d published by West
Publishing Company for the final versions of these opinions.
The advance sheets to Ohio St.3d will also contain the volume
and page numbers where the opinions will be found in the bound
volumes of the Ohio Official Reports.

MetroHealth Medical Center, Appellant, v. Kaiser Foundation
Hospitals et al., Appellees.
[Cite as MetroHealth Med. Ctr. v. Kaiser Found. Hosp.
(1993), Ohio St.3d .]
(No. 92-2637 -- Submitted January 13, 1993 -- Decided
January 25, 1993.)
Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No.
64828.
On Motion for Reconsideration.

Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, David J. Young, Steven W.
Tigges, Charles F. Clarke, Robin G. Weaver and John E. Lynch,
Jr., for appellant.
Gallagher, Sharp, Fulton & Norman, Burt Fulton, Beverly A.
Harris, Ernest W. Auciello, Jr. and Timothy J. Fitzgerald;
Chester, Hoffman, Willcox & Saxbe, John J. Chester and Donald
C. Brey, for appellees.

The motion to reconsider the order of January 6, 1993,
reported at 65 Ohio St.3d 1485, N.E.2d , is denied on
the following vote:
A.W. Sweeney, Acting C.J., and Douglas, J., would deny the
motion.
Wright, J., would grant the motion in part.
Resnick, J., would grant the motion.
Moyer, C.J., F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., not
participating.

Wright, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part. I
am writing to explain my position throughout this matter. The
complexity of this case and the parties' acrimonious memoranda
have led, in my opinion, to an incorrect result.
Proceedings Below
The following facts have been extracted from the parties'
briefs. This case arises from a dispute over the termination
of a contract, a "Hospital Services Agreement," between the
movant, MetroHealth Medical Center ("MetroHealth"), and

respondents, Kaiser Foundation Hospitals and the Ohio
Permanente Medical Group, Inc. ("Kaiser"). On June 23, 1992,
MetroHealth filed a complaint in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas
Court against Kaiser seeking declaratory, injunctive, and
appropriate ancillary relief. MetroHealth also asked the trial
court to grant a preliminary injunction. MetroHealth sought,
by this action, to prevent Kaiser from ending the parties'
relationship through the use of the termination clause of their
contract. MetroHealth's claims were based on equitable
estoppel, promissory estoppel, and breach of contract
theories. Kaiser filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in
August 1992 and MetroHealth filed an amended complaint in
October. On October 27, 1992, Kaiser filed another motion to
dismiss pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6).
The common pleas court scheduled an evidentiary hearing on
MetroHealth's request for a preliminary injunction for December
9, 1992. On December 9, before hearing any evidence, the court
allowed argument on Kaiser's motion to dismiss. Following
argument from both parties, the court granted Kaiser's motion
in its entirety and dismissed MetroHealth's complaint from the
bench. On December 11 and 18, MetroHealth filed motions with
the trial court seeking relief from the judgment and an
injunction pending appeal. These motions were not ruled on by
the court.
On December 23, 1992, MetroHealth filed a notice of
appeal, a motion for expedited appeal, and a motion for
injunctive relief in the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County.
On December 29, 1992, a two-judge panel heard oral argument on
the motions. The court denied injunctive relief but granted
expedited appeal.
On December 30, the trial court issued an opinion granting
declaratory judgment in favor of Kaiser and dismissing the
action. Because this opinion was issued following argument to
and a decision by the court of appeals, there are serious
questions as to whether the trial court had jurisdiction to
issue an opinion in this case and, consequently, whether its
opinion carries any legal weight.
Proceedings in This Court
On December 30, 1992, MetroHealth filed an "Application
for Emergency Relief Pending Resolution of Expedited Appeal" in
this court. On December 31, the members of the court were
polled and, with the Chief Justice not participating,
MetroHealth's motion was unanimously granted. See 65 Ohio
St.3d 1485, N.E.2d . At that time I believed that I
was voting to grant only "an Order preserving the status quo
and staying appellees [Kaiser] * * * from enforcing the notice
of a January 1, 1993 termination of the Hospital Services
Agreement between MetroHealth and Kaiser." See MetroHealth's
Application for Emergency Relief Pending Resolution of
Expedited Appeal, at 2.
To my dismay, the court's order, which was issued late in
the day on December 31, 1992, was significantly broader than I
had believed it would be. The third paragraph of the order1 in
effect granted MetroHealth much of the relief it had sought in
the trial court; it went far beyond the preservation of the
status quo.
Not unexpectedly, in light of the breadth of the December

31 order, Kaiser filed a motion to vacate on January 4. When
the newly constituted court met in conference on January 6, a
majority recognized that the December 31 order was
substantially overbroad and voted five to one to grant Kaiser's
motion to vacate. 65 Ohio St.3d 1485, N.E.2d . Again
to my dismay the resulting order granted too much. My hope was
that the status quo would be preserved but that additional
relief would not be granted. Rather than merely vacating the
overbroad portions of the third paragraph, however, the
majority vacated the entire order. I regret that I did not
express my views in writing at that juncture.
I note in passing that, from the start, the memoranda
filed by the attorneys involved in this case have been
acrimonious and their allegations frequently have been
unconstructive. In my opinion the tone of the memoranda filed
by both parties and their inability or unwillingness to reach
any common ground whatsoever have made an accurately informed
decision by this court difficult, at best, to reach. In an
extraordinary circumstance such as this, where the record has
not been fully developed below, the attorneys' failure to come
to any sort of agreement on the facts keeps this court from
doing its job: deciding questions of law.
On January 7, 1993, MetroHealth filed an "Emergency Motion
to Reconsider Decision to Vacate Entry." This is the motion
disposed of by today's entry. Because I wish to stand by my
position throughout, I vote to grant MetroHealth's motion to
reconsider, in part.
On reconsideration I would issue an order prohibiting
Kaiser from terminating its Hospital Services Agreement with
MetroHealth pending the resolution of MetroHealth's expedited
appeal in the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County. I would
not, however, reconsider my vote to vacate the other, overbroad
portions of the order set forth in the third paragraph of the
court's December 31, 1992 entry. Accordingly, I respectfully
concur in part with and dissent in part from today's
disposition.

FOOTNOTE:
1 "IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Kaiser Foundation Hospitals
and Ohio Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (collectively referred
to as 'Kaiser') are hereby stayed from enforcing the notice of
a January 1, 1993 termination of the Hospital Services
Agreement between MetroHealth Medical Center ('MetroHealth')
and Kaiser; from decreasing the volume and case mix of tertiary
care referrals to MetroHealth; and from referring Kaiser
members in Cuyahoga County needing tertiary care services
provided by MetroHealth to entities outside the MetroHealth
System, pending the expedited decision of the Cuyahoga County
Court of Appeals on MetroHealth's appeal (case No. 64828) of
the trial court's December 9, 1992 Order granting Kaiser's
Motion to Dismiss MetroHealth's Amended Complaint." Id.

Alice Robie Resnick, J., dissenting. I would grant
MetroHealth's motion for reconsideration filed on January 7,
1993. The motion requested that this court reconsider its
decision of January 6, 1993, vacating the entry of a stay
entered on December 31, 1992. See 65 Ohio St.3d

1485-1586, N.E.2d
.
Briefly, on December 31, 1992, this court granted
MetroHealth's motion for a stay prohibiting Kaiser from
terminating its Hospital Services Agreement with MetroHealth,
pending the resolution of an expedited hearing of MetroHealth's
appeal in the Cuyahoga County Court of Appeals in March 1993.
Six members of the Supreme Court as then constituted voted to
grant the stay, with Chief Justice Moyer not participating. On
January 4, 1993, Kaiser filed a motion to vacate the stay.
Between December 31, 1992 and January 4, 1993, two new members
had replaced retiring members of this court and the new court
convened on January 6, 1993, to decide this matter. At that
time, five justices voted for dismissal of the original
MetroHealth motion, myself dissenting and Chief Justice Moyer
not participating. What is extremely confusing in this matter
is that now the two new justices have determined that they
should not participate any further in this matter. However,
rather than vacating their previous votes, which they now
apparently deem inappropriate, they are adhering to those votes
and thereby blocking reinstatement of the prior court's vote,
which was unanimous save for the fact that the Chief Justice
did not participate.
Under these circumstances, if the new justices have now
deemed it inappropriate to participate in this matter, then the
status quo should be reinstated and the decision of December
31, 1992 should control. Therefore, on reconsideration of our
decision on Kaiser's motion to vacate, I would deny vacation
and reissue the order of December 31, 1992, prohibiting Kaiser
from terminating its Hospital Services Agreement with
MetroHealth until the merits of this matter can be heard by the
Cuyahoga County Court of Appeals.