OHIO SUPREME COURT RULES THAT BODILY INJURY PLAINTIFFS

MAY RECOVER FAIR MARKET VALUE OF HOME HEALTH CARE

PROVIDED BY SPOUSE, BUT NOT THE SPOUSE’S LOST WAGES

By Timothy P. Heather, Esq.

Benjamin, Yocum & Heather, LLC

            On September 17, 2008, the Ohio Supreme Court decided Hutchings v. Childress, 2008-Ohio-4568. In Hutchings, the Court ruled that in a bodily injury lawsuit, an injured plaintiff may recover from the defendant the fair market value of home health care which is provided by the plaintiff’s spouse, rather than by a hired home health care provider. The fact that the spouse was not charging for his or her services is irrelevant. So, too, is the income the spouse missed from his or her regular employment by taking time off from work so as to care for the injured spouse. Evidence must be shown as to the fair market value of the home health care services provided by the supporting spouse.

            In Hutchings, Mrs. Hutchings of Dublin, Ohio suffered long-term brain injuries in a traffic accident caused by Defendant, Mr. Childress, who was in the scope of his employment with Central Ohio Paintball, Inc.  Mr. Hutchings, a self-employed financial planner, took six weeks off from work after the accident to care for Mrs. Hutchings on a full-time basis and subsequently reduced his hours at his office in order to provide daily care for her, take her to various medical appointments, and assume household duties she formerly performed.

            In writing for the 5-2 majority, Justice Pfeifer wrote:

“We find the majority approach to be the consistent and practical way to resolve the issue. The benefit of spousal care is measured in its emotional value, not its economic value. The emotional value of the care cannot be quantified. The only practical way for courts to value a family member’s care is to determine the economic value as if the care had been provided by a non-family member. In this case, the spouse providing the care is a stockbroker. Is the care that a stockbroker provides an injured spouse more valuable than the care provided by a spouse making the minimum wage? No. Does the value of a stockbroker’s support of his spouse fluctuate with the stock market? No. The care a spouse provides is not more valuable to an injured plaintiff because of the nature of the job held by the person providing the care.

“The issue is one of causation and foreseeability. A tortfeasor who caused an automobile accident would expect to be responsible for paying a mechanic’s rate for the repair of a plaintiff’s automobile, not the hourly rate of a surgeon who likes to tinker with automotive repair. Likewise, a tortfeasor would expect to pay the market rate for the care provided to the injured party, not the wages of a stockbroker who provided that care. A spouse’s choice to take a break from employment to provide care is only indirectly attributable to a tortfeasor’s actions. That choice is caused by a sense of obligation rather than by the accident. The benefit of spousal care inures to both the injured and uninjured spouse. The majority rule for compensation of spousal care, which allows recovery for the market value of the care provided, ensures that the benefit of that care does not inure to the tortfeasor.”

            This case did not work out very well for Mr. and Mrs. Hutchings. At trial, the Hutchings only introduced into evidence the value of lost wages which Mr. Hutchings incurred while providing care for his wife. They did not attempt to introduce into evidence the fair market value of the services which Mr. Hutchings rendered, even though the trial court did not limit testimony about the fair market value of the care. The trial court had refused to allow the jury to consider and award damages based on Mr. Hutchings’ lost income, which had been affirmed on appeal. With the Ohio Supreme Court affirming the appellate court, Mr. and Mrs. Hutchings are simply out of luck with regard to obtaining compensation for the fair market value of Mr. Hutchings’ nursing care to Mrs. Hutchings.