440.279.4480
info@petersenlegal.com

In The News

Find out the latest news regarding our firm and its clients

Justice for John Paganini

Justice for John Paganini

  • January 16, 2026
  • PetersenLegal
  • Comments Off on Justice for John Paganini

An As-Applied Due Course of Law Challenge Before the Ohio Supreme Court

Countdown to Oral Argument
February 10, 2025

Overview



This page presents the case of John Paganini, a 94-year-old Marine veteran, whose jury verdict for catastrophic injury is now before the Ohio Supreme Court on a narrow, as-applied constitutional challenge.

The issue before the Court has been framed deliberately and from the outset.

This is not a facial challenge to Ohio’s medical-malpractice damages statute.
Mr. Paganini does not ask the Court to invalidate R.C. 2323.43.

Instead, the case presents a single, record-specific question:

Whether applying R.C. 2323.43(A)(3) to Mr. Paganini—on these facts—violates the Due Course of Law Clause of the Ohio Constitution.

Both the trial court and the Eighth District Court of Appeals answered that question in the affirmative, holding that the statute is unconstitutional as applied to Mr. Paganini.

Who Is John Paganini



John Paganini honorably served in the United States Marine Corps, where he was trained as a sharpshooter—a role requiring precision, discipline, and trust.

For decades after his service, John lived an active, independent life.  A college graduate, he was married for 68 years, raised four children, and built a career in the information-technology industry. He remained engaged and self-sufficient well into his nineties.

John’s longevity is not theoretical.  His older sister is now 107 years old and lives independently in her own apartment.

In January 2022, at age 90, John underwent routine cataract surgery. 

The Medical Emergency



On the morning after surgery, John contacted his surgeon’s office reporting new black spots and worsening symptoms. The call was routed through the after-hours answering service to the on-call physician.

John was seen later that morning. Despite signs that the surgeon later acknowledged could indicate endophthalmitis, John was reassured and sent home.

By the following day, his condition had deteriorated. A retinal specialist diagnosed acute endophthalmitis, a rapidly progressive and vision-threatening eye infection. Despite emergency treatment that afternoon, it was too little, too late.

John permanently lost all vision in his left eye. The eye later became permanently deformed and will require replacement with a prosthetic eye.

The Lawsuit



John filed suit on November 29, 2022, in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, alleging medical negligence and asserting—from the outset—that R.C. 2323.43(A)(3) was unconstitutional as applied to him personally. 

Discovery Misconduct and Sanctions



Discovery became a material issue.

After extensive motion practice and a five-hour sanctions hearing, the trial court found that defendants’ discovery responses were “not truly responsive,” “obfuscatory and unhelpful,” and violated the letter and spirit of the Civil Rules.”

The court imposed sanctions and barred defendants from shifting fault to an undisclosed physician whose identity surfaced only after the deadline to add parties had expired.

The Trial and Verdict



The case was tried over five days in January 2024, when John was 92 years old. The jury deliberated for five hours.

The jury returned a verdict of $1,487,500 in noneconomic damages and made two express findings that John suffered catastrophic injury under Ohio law:

  • Loss of a bodily organ system
  • Permanent and substantial physical deformity

The Trial Court’s As-Applied Ruling



Before judgment was entered, John moved to include the full jury verdict, arguing that applying R.C. 2323.43(A)(3)’s $500,000 cap to him would violate Article I, Section 16 of the Ohio Constitution.

On April 16, 2024, the trial court agreed—holding that the statute, as applied to John Paganini, violated his due course of law rights and ordering judgment on the full verdict. 

The Appeal — Affirmed



Defendants appealed.

On January 30, 2025, the Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed in full, holding that:

  • The jury verdict was supported by the evidence.
  • The jury’s catastrophic-injury findings were valid.
  • John’s challenge was properly an as-applied challenge, not a facial one.
  • Applying the $500,000 cap to John would force him to forgo 66.4% of his jury award to subsidize a public benefit.
  • Doing so was arbitrary and unreasonable under Ohio precedent.  

Ohio Supreme Court Precedent



The appellate court relied on controlling Ohio Supreme Court authority.

Morris v. Savoy (1991) holds that it is:

“irrational and arbitrary to impose the cost of the intended benefit to the general public solely upon a class consisting of those most severely injured by medical malpractice.”

In Arbino v. Johnson & Johnson (2007), the Court upheld a general damages cap in part because it did not burden catastrophically injured plaintiffs, noting that the statute:

“alleviate[d] this concern by allowing for limitless noneconomic damages for those suffering from catastrophic injuries.”

The Eighth District concluded that R.C. 2323.43(A)(3) lacks that safeguard and recreates the constitutional defect condemned in Morris when applied to plaintiffs like John Paganini.

Why This Case Is Exceptionally Rare — and Why the Legislature Expected Judicial Oversight



When the General Assembly enacted S.B. 281 in 2003, it did so to address a perceived medical-malpractice insurance crisis. Legislators were told that rapidly rising premiums threatened physician availability and patient access to care. The statute’s purpose was therefore systemic: to stabilize insurance markets and curb excessive verdicts, not to eliminate full compensation in every case.

Critically, the General Assembly did not claim that medical-malpractice caps would operate fairly in all circumstances. To the contrary, S.B. 281 reflects legislative caution. The statute expressly created the Ohio Medical Malpractice Commission and directed it to study the law’s real-world effects, investigate medical-malpractice issues, and report back to the legislature within two years. That structure reflects tentative policymaking, not a mandate for mechanical application.

The Eighth District Court of Appeals observed that between 2005 and 2019, there were only 30 medical-malpractice jury verdicts statewide exceeding the statutory caps—and it remains unclear how many involved statutorily defined catastrophic injuries. Those numbers confirm what the legislature anticipated: cases like this one sit at the outer margins of the statute’s intended operation.

John Paganini’s case is rarer still:

  • A jury found two independent catastrophic-injury triggers under the statute itself
  • Applying the cap would reduce the verdict by nearly 70%
  • John was 90 years old at the time of injury, 92 at trial, and is now 94, making noneconomic damages the principal means by which permanent loss could be recognized

Applying the cap here does not further S.B. 281’s legislative purpose. Reducing this verdict does not stabilize insurance markets, increase physician supply, or curb excess. It instead forces a single catastrophically injured plaintiff to absorb the full cost of a broad public policy choice—precisely the result Ohio courts have warned against.

S.B. 281 was written to control excess, not to compel courts to ignore catastrophic reality when it arises on a fully developed record. By commissioning a study and preserving judicial review, the General Assembly anticipated that edge cases would require constitutional scrutiny.

John Paganini’s case is that edge case.

It is exactly where as-applied review matters most.

What Happens When a Rare Case Meets a Rigid Rule



John Paganini’s case does not challenge the wisdom of medical-malpractice reform as a general matter. It tests whether a statute enacted to address systemic insurance concerns can be applied mechanically, even when doing so produces an outcome untethered from both legislative purpose and constitutional principle.

The trial court and the Eighth District Court of Appeals answered that question the same way:  it cannot.

They concluded that applying the medical-malpractice cap here would require John Paganini to relinquish 66.4% of a jury verdict—not because the jury overreached, but because the statute, as applied, forces the cost of a broad public policy choice onto a single catastrophically injured plaintiff.

That is the constitutional fault line this case presents.

Why the Lower Courts’ Rulings Matter



Both courts below rejected the argument that John’s claim is a disguised facial challenge. Instead, they recognized what the record shows:

  • John challenged the statute as applied to him, from the outset of the case;
  • The jury made specific catastrophic-injury findings under the statute itself;
  • The reduction required by the cap would be extraordinary in magnitude; and
  • The result would be arbitrary and unreasonable under Ohio precedent.

This posture matters. As-applied review exists precisely to address edge cases—where a statute that may be valid in most circumstances fails constitutionally at the margins.

John Paganini’s case arrived at the appellate courts on a fully developed record, not an abstraction. That is why it succeeded where earlier challenges did not—and why it is now before Ohio’s highest court.

The Case Before the Ohio Supreme Court



Following the Eighth District’s decision on January 30, 2025, the defendants sought discretionary review.  The Ohio Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction.

The appeal now places John Paganini—a 94-year-old Marine veteran—against a coordinated coalition of institutional interests urging enforcement of the cap, including:

  • statewide hospital and medical associations, and
  • The Ohio Attorney General, defending the statute’s constitutionality.

As The Columbus Dispatch reported on August 21, 2025, this case represents: 

“The first direct challenge of the 22-year-old law.”— Susan Petersen, counsel for John Paganini

That history matters. For more than two decades, the medical-malpractice cap avoided appellate review in a case with this record. This is the case in which the constitutional question can no longer be deferred.

The Question Presented



The issue before the Court is narrow, but consequential:

Does the Due Course of Law Clause require a trial court to reduce a jury’s verdict by 66.4% for a catastrophically injured 94-year-old Marine veteran—based solely on the fact that his injury occurred in a medical setting?

The answer does not require invalidating the statute. It requires deciding whether as-applied constitutional limits still mean what they say.

Procedural Timeline


  • December 2021 — John Paganini undergoes cataract surgery at age 90
  • November 29, 2022 — Lawsuit filed; as-applied constitutional challenge asserted
  • January 8, 2024 — Trial court issues sanctions order for discovery misconduct
  • January 2024 — Jury trial (John, age 92); verdict for $1,487,500
  • April 16, 2024 — Trial court holds cap unconstitutional as applied
  • January 30, 2025 — Eighth District Court of Appeals affirms
  • February 10, 2026 — Oral argument before the Ohio Supreme Court

The Record Before the Court



The materials below reflect the actual record and briefing considered by the courts at each stage of this case. They are provided to present the issues exactly as they were litigated and decided.

Trial Court:
Eighth District Court of Appeals:
Ohio Supreme Court:

Oral Argument



🗓 February 10, 2025
📍 Ohio Supreme Court, Columbus

#Justice4John

This case concerns one man, one jury verdict, and a single question:
whether constitutional limits still apply when a statute, as applied to real-world facts, is pushed to its outer edge.