FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF
SUMMIT, OHIO CASE No. CV-2012-08-4446
ANTONIOS P. TSAROUHAS and MARK J. DVORAK, Attorneys at Law,
GREGORY T. ROSSI and DOUGLAS G. LEAK, Attorneys at Law, for
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
Arlan Hall appeals the judgment entry of the Summit County
Court of Common Pleas granting the motion to dismiss filed by
the appellees, Douglas Ehrler, M.D., Crystal Clinic, Inc.,
and Crystal Clinic Orthopaedic Surgeons, Inc. We reverse and
This medical malpractice action was originally filed on June
3, 2010, in the Summit County Court of Common Pleas. See
Hall v. Crystal Clinic, Inc., Summit C.P. No. CV
2010-06-3989 (Sept. 19, 2011). The original action was
voluntarily dismissed on September 19, 2011, and the
complaint was refiled under case number CV 2012-08-4446 on
August 2, 2012. On August 31, 2012, the appellees filed an
answer to the complaint, and on August 12, 2013, the
appellees filed a motion to dismiss.
The motion to dismiss was filed pursuant to Civ.R. 3(A) and
Civ.R. 4.1(A) on the grounds that the trial court lacked
personal jurisdiction, and was based upon an alleged failure
to commence an action under the original filing of the case,
and consequentially, the alleged inapplicability of the
savings statute, R.C. 2305.19, to the refiled action. The
motion did not present itself as being filed pursuant to any
of the provisions of Civ.R. 12(B) or (C), and the trial court
did not construe the motion as being filed under any
provision of Civ.R. 12. On January 27, 2017, the trial court
granted the appellees' motion to dismiss. Mr. Hall now
appeals, raising one assignment of error.
TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING
PLAINTIFF'S/APPELLANT'S COMPLAINT BASED ON FAILURE OF
Mr. Hall argues the trial court erred in dismissing his
complaint based upon a failure of service in the original
action. We do not reach the merits of this argument.
The granting of a motion to dismiss filed under Civ.R. 12(B)
or a motion for judgment on the pleadings filed under Civ.R.
12(C) is reviewed de novo by this Court. Savoy v.
Kramer, 9th Dist. Summit No. 27418, 2015-Ohio-437,
¶ 5. "[A] motion to dismiss filed after the
pleadings have closed * * * is appropriately considered a
motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Civ.R.
12(C)." State ex rel. Midwest Pride IV, Inc. v.
Pontious, 75 Ohio St.3d 565, 569 (1996), quoting Lin
v. Gatehouse Constr. Co., 84 Ohio App.3d 96, 99 (8th
Dist.1992). Because the appellees had already filed an answer
when they filed their motion to dismiss, we must view the
trial court's ruling as having granted a motion for
judgment on the pleadings under Civ.R. 12(C). See State
ex rel. Mancino v. Tuscarawas Cty. Court of Common
Pleas, Slip Opinion No. 2017-Ohio-7528, ¶ 8, fn. 2.
"Civ.R. 12(C) * * * presents only questions of law, and
determination of the motion for judgment on the pleadings is
restricted solely to the allegations in the pleadings."
Peterson v. Teodosio,34 Ohio St.2d 161, 166 (1973).
"In ruling upon a motion under Civ.R. 12(C), the trial
court is limited to the face of the pleadings on file with
the court. It cannot be supported by facts outside ...