Ohio Court dismisses Underwood v. McGee appeal for lack of jurisdiction

The Ohio Court of Appeals has dismissed the appeal in the case of Underwood v. McGee, No. 25AP-691, due to a lack of jurisdiction. The court found that the appeal did not involve a final, appealable order, which is necessary for the court to have the authority to review the case. The decision affects Karen and Dean Underwood, who sought damages after a traffic crash involving Terri McGee, among other defendants.

The Underwoods filed their initial complaint on February 26, 2021, seeking damages for significant injuries suffered by Mrs. Underwood in a traffic accident. Their claims included negligence, medical payment coverage, and loss of consortium, among others. They were initially represented by Henderson Mokhtari & Weatherly Co., LPA, but later switched to the Mokhtari Law Firm, LLC. The case involved multiple defendants, including insurance companies and healthcare providers.

Throughout the proceedings, the Underwoods voluntarily dismissed claims against several parties, including Central Ohio Primary Care and Aetna. They also dismissed their claims against McGee with prejudice on January 21, 2022. The complexity of the case increased as various motions for summary judgment were filed by both the Underwoods and the defendants.

In August 2025, the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment and attorney fees while denying the Underwoods' motion. The trial court ordered the disbursal of attorney fees to the defendants, which prompted the Underwoods to appeal the decision.

However, the Ohio Court of Appeals, led by Judge Jamison, determined that they lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the appeal. The court noted that there were still pending motions for summary judgment between the Underwoods and another defendant, Cigna/Conduent, which meant that the trial court's decision was not a final order. In its opinion, the court stated, "Because the trial court’s decision was not a final, appealable order, we lack subject-matter jurisdiction over it."

The court explained that under Ohio law, appeals can only be made from final orders, as defined by the Ohio Revised Code and Civil Rules. Since the trial court's ruling did not resolve all claims or parties involved, it did not meet the criteria for a final, appealable order. The court emphasized that even if the decision affected the Underwoods' substantial rights, it still lacked the necessary language stating there was "no just reason for delay," which is required for partial judgments.

This dismissal means that the Underwoods must wait until all claims in the underlying litigation are resolved before they can appeal the trial court's decisions. The court stated that the Underwoods would still have the opportunity to seek relief once the trial court concludes all matters related to the case.

The dismissal of this appeal highlights the importance of understanding the procedural requirements for appealing court decisions. It serves as a reminder that parties must ensure that they are appealing final orders to avoid jurisdictional issues.

Looking ahead, the Underwoods may still pursue their claims against Cigna/Conduent and other defendants in the ongoing litigation. However, they will need to wait until the trial court issues a final judgment encompassing all claims and parties involved before they can appeal any decisions made in the case.