Background
Isabella Salvo, 83, was discharged from University Hospitals Geauga Medical Center in February 2021 after treatment for back pain, COVID-19 pneumonia, and MSSA bacteremia. Her daughter, Carmela Salvo-Hill, elected home care rather than skilled nursing placement. A hospital patient transporter wheeled Isabella to Carmela’s car and, under the hospital’s COVID-19 transport policy, attempted alone to move Isabella from the wheelchair into the vehicle while another transporter remained “clean” and did not physically assist.
Isabella went to the pavement during the transfer. Carmela alleged that the transporter could not safely handle Isabella alone and that multiple staff members were needed to get Isabella into a wheelchair and later back into one after the incident. Isabella returned to the emergency department and died a week later. Her death certificate identified failure to thrive with recent extremity blunt-impact injuries. Carmela, as executor, brought wrongful-death and survivorship claims. The trial court granted summary judgment to the hospital system.
The Court’s Holding
The Eighth District reversed and remanded. It held that the hospital was not entitled to immunity under Ohio’s pandemic-era H.B. 606 because the wheelchair-to-car transfer after Isabella’s discharge was not a covered “health care service.” The transfer was too attenuated from medical diagnosis, care, or treatment: Isabella had been medically cleared for discharge, the treating hospitalist said discharge-transport details were not part of her medical care, and the transfer was not an inherently necessary part of a medical procedure.
The court therefore treated the suit as one for ordinary negligence, not a medical claim. It found genuine disputes of material fact, including whether Isabella required more personnel for transfer and whether the hospital had offered or should have recommended ambulance transportation. Those factual disputes precluded summary judgment. Because the claim was ordinary negligence, the court also held that the expert-testimony requirement for medical-malpractice claims was not implicated. The trial court’s lack of explanation for its summary-judgment ruling, however, was not itself reversible error.
Key Takeaways
- H.B. 606 immunity requires covered health care services; a hospital’s COVID-19 transport policy alone does not make a post-discharge wheelchair transfer a covered service.
- A patient fall or transfer injury may support ordinary negligence rather than a medical claim when it is not part of diagnosis, treatment, or medically necessary care.
- Conflicting evidence about a patient’s transfer needs and available transportation can create jury questions on negligence.
Why It Matters
The decision limits the reach of Ohio’s COVID-19-era provider immunity in cases involving hospital operations occurring after discharge. Pandemic conditions and infection-control procedures do not, by themselves, convert routine transport decisions into protected health care services.
For hospitals and plaintiffs, the opinion underscores that the factual connection between an injury and actual medical diagnosis, care, or treatment—not merely the setting or timing of the event—governs whether a claim is medical negligence and whether pandemic immunity applies.