McNalley v. Keiser

Citations

• 2025 Ohio 5561

Syllabus

Per Mayle, J., plaintiff purported to challenge constitutionality of R.C. 2323.43(A)(3) as applied, but failed to articulate presently-existing facts explaining why statute was unreasonable and arbitrary as applied to him. As such, plaintiff's challenge was facial, requiring heightened burden of proof that was not met. Trial court found that argument can be made on case-by-case basis that caps are unreasonable and arbitrary for catastrophic injuries, but cited nothing supporting this conclusion here.