The Eighth Appellate District of Ohio has affirmed a lower court’s decision requiring Cory Kozlovich to pay over $1,600 in unpaid medical bills to North Star Medical Research, LLC. The appeal, brought by Kozlovich acting without an attorney (pro se), involved a barrage of challenges against the Berea Municipal Court’s Small Claims Division, ranging from claims of judicial abuse of discretion to allegations of fraud on the court. Ultimately, the appellate court found no reversible error in the proceedings below.
A Long-Running Billing Dispute
The dispute centers on medical services provided by North Star to Kozlovich between 2018 and 2020. North Star claimed Kozlovich had an outstanding balance of $1,606.00 dating back to 2020, despite diligent efforts to bill his insurance providers. The medical group noted that Kozlovich had signed agreements acknowledging his responsibility for payment and had actively involved himself in dictating billing codes before ultimately leaving the practice.
North Star filed its small claims action in April 2024. Kozlovich responded by filing a flurry of procedural motions—including requests to waive fees, continue the hearing, enforce Civil Procedure Rules, and dismiss the complaint—leading to multiple continuances before a hearing was finally held on September 4, 2024.
Denial of Continuance Upheld
Kozlovich’s first major argument on appeal was that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his final, emergency motion for a continuance just before the September hearing. He claimed he was suffering from an “acute illness,” possibly COVID-19, rendering him medically incapacitated.
The appellate court reviewed the denial under an “abuse of discretion” standard, noting that such decisions rely on the circumstances present at the time. The court pointed out that Kozlovich had already received a continuance once before. Furthermore, when the magistrate held an *ex parte* (one-sided) hearing to address the final continuance request, Kozlovich failed to substantiate the severity of his alleged illness. Finding the trial court’s refusal reasonable given the history of delays, the appellate court overruled this assignment of error.
Procedural Hurdles and Unruled Motions
Kozlovich also argued the trial court abused its discretion by failing to rule on his numerous pretrial motions before the hearing, suggesting “unreasonable docket management.”
The Eighth District explained that in Ohio courts, there is no absolute requirement for a trial judge to issue a written ruling on every single motion filed before trial. Often, if a motion is not expressly ruled upon, it is presumed to have been overruled. The appellate review found that the municipal court had, in fact, ruled on all motions that were properly filed with the clerk of court. Therefore, this challenge was also dismissed.
Small Claims Informality Shields Complaint Sufficiency
A key part of Kozlovich’s defense involved attacking the initial complaint itself, arguing it was too vague and failed to state a claim, thus depriving the court of subject matter jurisdiction.
The appellate court emphasized the nature of small claims court: it is designed for fast, fair, and *informal* adjudication. Under Ohio law governing small claims (R.C. Chapter 1925), the complaint must be concise and non-technical. Since North Star sought $1,606.00—well within the $6,000 jurisdictional limit—and clearly outlined the nature of the debt (unpaid medical bills), the complaint satisfied the statutory requirements for this specialized forum.
Non-Attorney Representation Allowed
Kozlovich contended that North Star’s Chief Operating Officer, Joanne Heil, and the owner, Dr. Mark Woyshville, engaged in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL) by presenting the case, arguing this violated R.C. 1925.17.
The court cited controlling Ohio Supreme Court precedent that allows a corporation in small claims court to appear through a “bona fide officer or salaried employee” to file and present a claim, provided they do *not* engage in cross-examination, argument, or other acts of advocacy. The evidence presented showed that Ms. Heil and Dr. Woyshville merely presented documentation; Ms. Heil answered questions during Kozlovich’s cross-examination, but this did not rise to the level of prohibited advocacy under the statute.
Rules of Evidence Inapplicable in Small Claims
Perhaps the most significant procedural ruling involved Kozlovich’s evidentiary objections. He claimed the court erred by admitting hearsay, secondary evidence (copies instead of originals), and evidence related to settlement offers.
The Eighth District quickly dismissed these claims by referencing Evid.R. 101(D)(8), which explicitly states that the Ohio Rules of Evidence do not apply in the small claims division of municipal courts. The rule’s staff notes indicate that in this layperson forum, judges should not deny justice through a “formalistic application of the law of evidence.” Because the rules Kozlovich cited were inapplicable to the hearing, the evidence admitted was not an abuse of discretion.
Other Arguments Rejected
Kozlovich’s remaining arguments—that the court erred by not joining “indispensable parties” like a debt collector, and that the judgment was procured by fraud—were also rejected. The argument regarding indispensable parties was summarily overruled because Kozlovich failed to cite sufficient legal authority to support why these other entities needed to be involved.
Regarding the fraud claim, Kozlovich pointed to Ms. Heil stating he was not in the armed services (though she admitted she didn’t personally know his status) and claimed he never received billing notices because North Star had the wrong address. The court found that the military status statement did not meet the high threshold for “fraud upon the court”—which requires egregious conduct defiling the judicial machinery. As for the non-receipt of bills, the court ruled this was an attempt to introduce new evidence on appeal that should have been raised below.
In conclusion, the Eighth Appellate District affirmed the judgment in favor of North Star Medical Research, LLC, upholding the $1,606.00 debt plus court costs and interest.