|
|
2006-0330. Froehlich v. Ohio Dept. of Mental Health, 2007-Ohio-4161.
Franklin App. No. 05AP-129, 2005-Ohio-7026. Judgment affirmed.
Moyer, C.J., Lundberg Stratton, O'Connor, O'Donnell, Lanzinger and Cupp, JJ., concur.
Pfeifer, J., dissents.
Opinion: http://www.supremecourtofohio.gov/rod/newpdf/0/2007/2007-Ohio-4161.pdf
(August 29, 2007) The Supreme Court of Ohio held today that the statutory one-year time limit for filing a civil suit for malicious prosecution begins to run on the date a grand jury declines to indict the accused, and is not extended by continuing conversations with a prosecutor regarding possible additional criminal charges.
The Court's 6-1 decision was authored by Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger.
The case involved a civil lawsuit filed by Patricia Froehlich against her former employer, the Ohio Department of Mental Health (ODMH). Froehlich, a registered nurse, was employed at the state-operated Cambridge Psychiatric Hospital from 1988 until July 2000, when she was fired for alleged abuse of a patient who had feigned a suicide attempt and then resisted efforts by hospital staff to move her to a “quiet room.” The next day, the patient complained to a patient advocate that orderlies had dragged her from her room to a treatment room at Froehlich's direction and exhibited rug burns on her buttocks that she claimed had been caused by this alleged abusive treatment.
Following an investigation of the incident, the Ohio State Highway Patrol and hospital police submitted reports to the Guernsey County Prosecutor recommending that charges of patient abuse and unauthorized use of restraints be filed against Froehlich. In March and April 2000, the Guernsey County prosecutor presented evidence to a grand jury seeking a felony indictment on the patient abuse charge, but did not pursue an indictment on the use of restraints charge. On April 4, 2000, the grand jury returned a finding of “no bill” and declined to indict her, indicating that it did not find probable cause that Froehlich had committed patient abuse.
After the grand jury returned the no-bill, the highway patrol, hospital police and county prosecutor continued to discuss the possibility of indicting Froehlich on the use-of-restraints charge. The prosecutor eventually declined to present further charges to the grand jury, and notified the highway patrol of that decision by letter on May 22, 2001.
In August 2001, Froehlich filed a complaint in the Ohio Court of Claims seeking damages from ODMH for malicious prosecution, defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court found for ODMH on the claims of defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress, but found in favor of Froehlich on her claim of malicious prosecution. The trial court held that Froehlich had filed her complaint within the one-year statute of limitations (the time limit) for initiating an action for malicious prosecution. The court determined that ODMH had continued to pursue criminal charges against her through May 2001, when the prosecutor finally notified the highway patrol that he would not pursue additional charges.
ODMH appealed, and the 10th District Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment in favor of Froehlich. The appellate panel held that the “prosecution” of Froehlich terminated and the time limit for her to file a malicious prosecution claim began to run on April 4, 2000, when the grand jury returned a “no bill” on the patient abuse charge. Because Froehlich waited until August 2001 to file suit, the 10th District held that the one-year statute of limitations had expired and her claim was therefore time-barred. Froehlich sought Supreme Court review of the 10th District's holding, and the Court agreed to hear arguments in the case.
Writing for the majority in today's decision, Justice Lanzinger affirmed the 10th District's decision and legal analysis. She noted that prior court decisions addressing similar facts have held that a grand jury's return of a no-bill is an event that “terminates a prosecution in the defendant's favor,” and thus triggers the running of the statute of limitations for filing a malicious prosecution claim.
Rejecting the trial court's finding that conversations concerning another possible charge “continued” the prosecution against Froehlich until May 2001, Justice Lanzinger wrote: “The allegation of improper use of restraints, discussed by the prosecutor, the Ohio State Highway Patrol and ODMH, was never instituted as a charge by information or indictment; no warrant or subpoena was issued. The charge was simply a potential charge. We agree with the statement of the Tenth District ... (that) ‘the communications following the issuance of the no-bill by the grand jury were merely the consideration of proceedings and not a formal institution of proceedings.' We therefore hold that the additional discussions about seeking an indictment on a second charge did not continue any ‘prosecution' against Froehlich beyond the date when the no-bill was issued.”
Justice Lanzinger's opinion was joined by Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer and Justices Evelyn Lundberg Stratton, Maureen O'Connor, Terrence O'Donnell and Robert R. Cupp.
Justice Paul E. Pfeifer entered a dissent citing the Supreme Court's holding in a 1995 case, Ash v. Ash that “A proceeding is ‘terminated in favor of the accused' only when its final disposition indicates that the accused is innocent.” “A no bill indicates that the prosecutor did not present enough evidence to enable the grand jury to indict, not that the accused is innocent,” wrote Justice Pfeifer. “Nothing in the Rules of Criminal Procedure prevents a prosecutor from reindicting an accused for the same offense after a no bill report is issued. Froehlich, therefore, remained in jeopardy and was in fact still being investigated after the grand jury had issued the no bill. I conclude that the proceeding was not terminated in favor of Froehlich until the abandonment of the prosecution by the prosecutor, which occurred on May 22, 2001. Accordingly the claim for malicious prosecution, which was filed on August 8, 2001, should not be time-barred.”
Contacts
William J. O'Malley, 614.262.8360, for
Patricia Froehlich.
Stephen P. Carney, 614.466.8980, for the Ohio Department of Mental Health.