from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas C.P.C. No.
Donahey & Defossez, Mark E. Defossez and Curtis M.
Fifner, for appellee.
Law, Brant E. Poling and Sabrina S. Sellers, for appellees.
Sabrina S. Sellers.
1} Plaintiff-appellant, Diane Amos, appeals a
judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas that
dismissed her complaint against defendants-appellees, Scott
Van Aman, M.D., and Orthopedic One, Inc. Because we lack
jurisdiction, we dismiss this appeal.
2} On September 12, 2018, Amos filed a complaint
alleging that Van Aman performed surgery on toes on Amos'
left foot without her consent. Amos further alleged that the
surgery caused the affected toes to become disfigured and
painful. According to Amos, by operating on her toes without
consent, Van Aman committed battery. Alternatively, Amos
asserted that Van Aman acted negligently by "fail[ing]
to recall, prior to or during the subject surgery, that he
was never given consent to perform surgery on certain of
plaintiffs left toes." (Compl. at ¶ 7.) Amos sought
to hold Orthopedic One vicariously liable for the torts Van
Aman allegedly committed.
3} Defendants answered the complaint and then moved
for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Civ.R. 12(C). In
their motion, defendants argued for dismissal because Amos
failed to comply with Civ.R. 10(D)(2), which requires a
plaintiff to file with the complaint an affidavit of merit or
a motion for an extension of time in which to file an
affidavit of merit in certain types of cases. Amos responded
that no such affidavit was necessary. On February 21, 2019,
the trial court issued a judgment and entry granting
defendants' motion and dismissing Amos' complaint
4} Amos now appeals the February 21, 2019 judgment,
and she assigns the following error:
The Trial Court erred when it granted
Defendants-Appellees'motion [sic] for Judgment on the
Pleadings when it held that an issue capable of understanding
by lay persons required expert testimony.
5} At oral argument, appellees asserted that this
court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to hear this appeal
because the February 21, 2019 judgment is not a final,
appealable order. Article IV, Section 3(B)(2) of the Ohio
Constitution establishes that courts of appeals "have
such jurisdiction as may be provided by law to review and
affirm, modify, or reverse judgments or final orders of the
courts of record inferior to the court of appeals within the
district." If the appealed judgment does not constitute
a final, appealable order, an appellate court lacks
jurisdiction to review it. Gehm v. Timberline Post &
Frame,112 Ohio St.3d 514, 2007-Ohio-607, ¶ 14.