Ohio Court Rejects Late Immunity Defense in Sexual Assault Case, Finds Jury Question on Foreseeability

An Ohio appellate panel reversed summary judgment for a psychiatric facility that sought to invoke statutory immunity after the close of discovery and two weeks before trial, holding that the burden of proof in immunity cases falls on the injured patient, not the facility, and that a jury should decide whether a patient's pattern of sexual assault against multiple women constituted an explicit threat to a clearly identifiable victim.

DAYTON (LN) — The Ohio Second Appellate District on April 24, 2026, reversed summary judgment for Kettering Health Behavioral Medical Center in a sexual assault lawsuit brought by a former patient, ruling on two independent grounds: the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the facility to amend its answer to add an immunity defense on the eve of trial, and even if the defense had been timely raised, genuine issues of material fact remained for a jury.

Jordan Helton was 18 years old and receiving inpatient mental health treatment at KHBMC on September 24, 2021, when Samuel Tumaini — involuntarily admitted that same day with a documented history of hypersexual behavior — was placed in a restricted hallway of the Behavioral Intensive Care Unit after he had already groped female staff members and climbed into bed with another female patient.

CCTV footage showed Nurse Avis Kelly opening the locked door to that hallway and allowing Helton to walk in, then closing the door behind her, locking Helton inside with Tumaini. Tumaini placed his hands on Helton's breasts, pushed her against the wall, and tried to drag her into his room. She broke free only after screaming loudly enough for another nurse to hear her through the locked door. No KHBMC staff member documented the incident in Helton's medical record or notified her treating physician. She was discharged from the facility shortly after.

Helton sued KHBMC in September 2023, alleging negligent security, negligent training and supervision, negligence per se, and respondeat superior, and seeking punitive damages for reckless, willful, and wanton conduct. KHBMC's original answer raised five affirmative defenses — none of them immunity. The parties completed nine fact-witness depositions between February and July 2024, and discovery closed December 9, 2024. Trial was set for January 6, 2025.

On December 23, 2024 — two weeks before trial and fifteen months into the litigation — KHBMC moved to amend its answer to add an immunity defense under R.C. 2305.51(B), which shields mental health organizations from liability for patient violence unless a patient or knowledgeable person has communicated an explicit threat of imminent and serious physical harm to a clearly identifiable victim. The trial court granted the amendment, then sua sponte vacated the trial date, reopened discovery, and ordered a new round of summary judgment briefing. KHBMC won that second motion in the trial court, which found no evidence that Tumaini had explicitly threatened Helton by name.

The Second Appellate District reversed on both grounds. Judge Mary K. Huffman wrote that the move to amend was flawed on two separate levels. First, Civ.R. 15(B), the provision KHBMC invoked, governs amendments to conform pleadings to trial evidence and has no application before a trial has occurred. Second, even under Civ.R. 15(A), which allows courts to freely give leave to amend when justice requires, the court found KHBMC's delay substantial, unjustified, and prejudicial. The facility had never indicated reliance on an immunity defense in its Rule 26 initial disclosures, did not raise it in its first summary judgment motion, and offered no explanation for waiting until the eve of trial to do so.

The court went further, holding that the immunity defense was not merely untimely but legally irrelevant. Under the Ohio Supreme Court's 2006 decision in Campbell v. Ohio State University Medical Center, the burden of establishing the elements of R.C. 2305.51(B) falls on the injured patient — not the facility. That allocation of the burden of proof, the panel concluded, makes it impossible to characterize R.C. 2305.51(B) as an affirmative defense at all. Huffman wrote that because Helton had the burden to establish the elements under R.C. 2305.51(B), KHBMC's amended answer to add an immunity defense was unnecessary and irrelevant.

On the merits of the immunity question, the panel rejected the trial court's narrow reading of the statute. The lower court had granted summary judgment on the sole ground that there was no evidence that an explicit threat of inflicting imminent and serious harm to Helton was communicated to KHBMC by Tumaini or a knowledgeable person. The appellate court found that framing too cramped given that Tumaini had already sexually assaulted multiple women in the locked unit, that Nurse Foster had isolated him in the Satellite BICU specifically because he was a threat to female patients, and that staff had been instructed to accompany him at all times if he left his room. Helton, as a female patient in that confined space, was a clearly identifiable potential victim, the panel held, and whether Tumaini's ongoing conduct constituted an explicit threat was a question for a jury.

The court also noted that KHBMC's failure to document the assault in Helton's medical record likely violated Ohio statutory requirements for maintaining accurate and complete records, and the facility's decision to discharge her immediately afterward without notifying her treating physician suggested bad faith.

Tumaini was arrested after the incident and eventually convicted of two counts of sexual imposition and one count of gross sexual imposition. Helton's case now returns to Montgomery County Common Pleas Court for trial on all of her claims.