On or about May 27, 2015, Susana Lyon (“Lyon”) presented at Lower Lights Christian Health Center (“Lower Lights”) with a history of GERD and tachycardia. In October 2015, Lyon presented again at Lower Lights with complaints of gastroparesis. Lyon had lost over 30 pounds since her last visit.
On November 24, 2015, Lyon presented to the Riverside Methodist Hospital (“Riverside”), reporting that she had not been able to keep water down for several days as well as intractable vomiting with nausea for several weeks. Lyon
reported that she had been in and out of the emergency department for two months where she would receive IV fluids and then feel better. Lyon was discharged on December 7, 2015.
Lyon was readmitted to Riverside two days later with persistent nausea and positional vertigo with spinning, as well as diplopia and blurred vision. Lyon was discharged on December 15, 2015. On or about December 21, 2025, Lyon was again admitted to Riverside then discharged two days later.
On January 15, 2016, Lyon was admitted to the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center where she was diagnosed with severe nutritional deficiency and Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome, which led to severe peripheral neuropathy.
On December 21, 2016, Lyon filed a complaint for medical negligence due to a failure to diagnose a thiamine deficiency, which resulted in Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome and severe neurologic injury. On April 20, 2023, the jury rendered its verdict in favor of Lyon and awarded damages of $25,172,526.32, including past medical care/expenses in the amount of $744,157.32, future medical expenses in the amount of $4,428,369.00, past non-economic damages in the amount of $5,000,000.00, and future non-economic damages in the amount of $15,000,000.00.
On April 28, 2023, the defendants filed a motion to journalize the jury’s verdict in conformance with the $500,000 noneconomic damages cap under R.C. 2323.43(A)(3). The defendants sought to have the trial court enter judgment consistent with the jury’s findings and R.C. 2323.43, which set forth a mandatory cap on noneconomic damages for all medical claims. On May 1, 2023, Lyon filed a motion to declare the damages cap in R.C. 2323.43 unconstitutional, on its face and as applied to her case, as it violated her right to due process, equal protection, trial by jury, and was unconstitutionally vague.
On May 31, 2023, the trial court denied the defendants’ motion and granted Lyon’s motion to declare the damages caps unconstitutional. The defendants appelaed.
Due Process
The Court of Appeals of Ohio Tenth Appellate District stated in its August 21, 2025 Decision: “As applied to the instant case, however, we find a reduction in Lyon’s noneconomic damages is clearly and convincingly unreasonable and arbitrary … Here, if the cap is not applied, the appellants are liable for 9 percent of $25,172,526 ($2,265,527). Conversely, if the cap is applied, the appellants are liable for 9 percent of the economic damages plus $500,000 ($965,527). This represents a 57.4 percent reduction in damages “in order to lower medical-malpractice insurance rates for the public’s benefit.” Paganini at ¶ 50. Even more troubling, the statute does not adjust the $500,000 cap for inflation making the recovery significantly less valuable than at the time the statute went into effect … Given the severity of Lyon’s injuries and significance of the reduction of the noneconomic damages, the application of the cap in R.C. 2323.43(A)(3), as applied to this case, is unreasonable and arbitrary … even accepting the difficulty in evaluating noneconomic damages generally, given Lyon’s age and the severity of her injuries, reducing the noneconomic damages to $500,000 is unreasonable and operates as an arbitrary reduction in damages for a plaintiff that has suffered such extreme and lasting harm. For the forgoing reasons, we find that R.C. 2323.43 is unconstitutional, as applied, as it violates Lyon’s constitutional right to due process.”
Equal Protection
“Equal protection of the law requires the existence of reasonable grounds for making a distinction between those within and outside the designated groups … Under a facial challenge, we cannot say that R.C. 2323.43 is defective on equal protection grounds … While there may or may not be more effective ways to combat the problem of rising healthcare costs, “the General Assembly is charged with making the difficult policy decisions on such issues and codifying them into law. This court is not the forum in which to second-guess such legislative choices; we must simply determine whether they comply with the Constitution.””
“In our examination of R.C. 2323.43 and 2315.18, we are struck by the two classes of plaintiffs encompassed in the statutes: those victims that seek recovery for damages from medical negligence and those who seek recovery for damages derived from other torts. While both statutes place similar caps on noneconomic damages, there is no cap under R.C. 2315.18(B)(3) for noneconomic damages from catastrophic injuries. Conversely, R.C. 2323.43(A)(3) sets a cap on noneconomic damages of catastrophic injuries derived from medical negligence at $500,000. As set forth previously, we recognize the high standard of review at issue with facial challenges and, as set forth in Morris, we do not take issue with the General Assembly’s efforts to combat the rising costs of healthcare. However, as applied to the facts of this case, the distinction between Lyon and a nonmedical tort victim seeking a comparable recovery under R.C. 2315.18(B)(3) is clearly and convincingly unreasonable and arbitrary. Under R.C. 2323.43(A)(3), Lyon would be required to accept a 57.4 percent reduction in damages that would not have occurred had her injuries derived from a general tort matter. Thus, Lyon is treated differently based on the nature of her victimization.”
Source Lyon v. Riverside Methodist Hospital, No. 23AP-379.
If you or a loved one may have been injured (or worse) as a result of medical negligence in Ohio or in another U.S. state, you should promptly seek the legal advice of an Ohio medical malpractice attorney, or a medical malpractice attorney in your state, who may investigate your medical malpractice claim for you and represent you or your loved one in a medical malpractice case, if appropriate.
Click here to visit our website or call us on our toll-free line in the United States (800-295-3959) to be connected with medical malpractice lawyers in your state who may be willing to help you with your medical malpractice claim.
Turn to us when you don’t know where to turn.
