Another Ohio District Court Rules that the Non-Economic Damages Cap on Catastrophic Medical Injuries Is Unconstitutional as Applied
Following the 8th District Court of Appeals’ ruling in Paganini v. Cataract Eye Center of Cleveland earlier this year, the 10th District has likewise ruled that the non-economic damages cap under R.C. 2323.43(A)(3) is unconstitutional as applied.
Susana Lyon filed a medical negligence complaint against Riverside Methodist Hospital, among other defendants, for failure to diagnose a thiamine deficiency, which she alleged resulted in her developing Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome and a severe neurological injury. On April 20, 2023, a Franklin County jury awarded Lyon damages of $25,172,525.32. The breakdown of damages is as follows:
Economic Damages:
Past Medical Care/Expenses: $744,157.32
Future Medical Expenses: $4,428,369.00
Non-Economic Damages:
Past Non-Economic Damages: $5,000,000.00
Future Non-Economic Damages: $15,000,000.00
After the trial verdict, the defendants filed a motion to enforce the non-economic damages cap of $500,000 under R.C. 2323.43(A)(3), which Lyons challenged, both facially and as applied, under due process and equal protection grounds. The trial court denied the defendants’ motion and held that the damages cap is unconstitutional.
In assessing whether the trial court erred in declaring that the medical claim damages cap is unconstitutional, the 10th District considered the constitutionality of the statute both facially and as applied under both due process and equal protection grounds. Under the rational basis test, the 10th District held that the statute bears a real and substantial relation to the public interest concerns. Thus, the analysis of the statute hinges on whether the cap is unreasonable or arbitrary.
Importantly, the 10th District held that under both due process and equal protection grounds, the damages cap is not facially unreasonable or arbitrary.
Yet, persuaded by the 8th District’s ruling in Paganini, the 10th District held that, as applied to Lyon, the non-economic damages cap is clearly and convincingly unreasonable and arbitrary. If the cap were to be applied, Lyon’s award would be reduced by 57.4%, which the 10th District reasoned is unreasonable and arbitrary. The court also found it troubling that the statute does not adjust for inflation and calculated that the $500,000 cap that was enacted by the Ohio Legislature in 2003 would equate to only $286,475.79 as of April 2025. Thus, under due process grounds, the 10th District found that the cap is unconstitutional as applied to Lyon.
Under equal protection grounds, the 10th District similarly held that, as applied to Lyon, the non-economic damages cap is unconstitutional. The court reasoned that, under Ohio law, there is no cap for non-economic damages for catastrophic injuries that are non-medical, but there is a cap for medical claims. The 10th District held:
[I]t is unreasonable and arbitrary that Lyon should be treated differently in this instance than an individual that suffered catastrophic injuries in a nonmedical malpractice context. If Lyon was injured by the appellants in an automobile injury, instead of in the medical negligence setting, she would have been entitled to the full award of noneconomic damages.
As of May 27, 2025, Paganini v. Cataract Eye Center of Cleveland is pending in the Ohio Supreme Court (2025-0386). Riverside Methodist Hospital has not yet appealed the 10th District’s ruling.
Case Law Alerts, 4th Quarter, October 2025 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2025 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.