A recent appellate court decision has reopened the legal dispute over whether a mental health facility can be held liable for an alleged sexual assault of one patient by another, raising questions about statutory immunity and institutional responsibility in such settings. The Second Appellate District Court of Appeals of Ohio announced on April 24, 2026, that it had reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Kettering Medical Center, doing business as Kettering Health Behavioral Medical Center (KHBMC), and remanded the matter for further proceedings.
The appeal was filed by Jordan Helton against Kettering Medical Center in Montgomery County under case number C.A. No. 30484. According to the opinion authored by Judge Mary K. Huffman, with Judges Tucker and Epley concurring, Helton challenged both the trial court’s decision to allow KHBMC to amend its answer to include a statutory immunity defense shortly before trial and its subsequent grant of summary judgment based on that defense.
The background provided in the appellate opinion details that on September 24, 2021, Helton was an eighteen-year-old inpatient at KHBMC receiving mental health therapy when Samuel Tumaini was involuntarily admitted with a documented history of hypersexual behavior. Staff were aware of Tumaini’s risk profile and implemented measures such as one-on-one monitoring and restricted access within the Behavioral Intensive Care Unit (BICU). Despite these precautions, surveillance footage later showed staff allowing Helton into an area where Tumaini was present without adequate supervision. The incident escalated when Tumaini allegedly assaulted Helton after she was locked in a hallway with him; her screams eventually drew staff intervention.
Following this event, police were notified and Tumaini was arrested and convicted on related charges. However, no documentation was made in Helton’s medical record about the incident, nor was her treating physician informed at the time. After initially denying memory of the event—while medicated—Helton later provided a statement to police.
In September 2023, Helton filed suit against KHBMC alleging negligent security, negligence per se, negligent training and supervision, and respondeat superior claims. She sought punitive damages for what she described as reckless conduct by the facility. Initially, KHBMC asserted five affirmative defenses but did not raise statutory immunity under Ohio Revised Code section 2305.51(B).
Key procedural events followed: discovery concluded in December 2024 after extensive pretrial litigation; trial was set for January 2025; only three weeks before trial did KHBMC seek leave to amend its answer to add an immunity defense under R.C. 2305.51(B). The trial court allowed this amendment over Helton’s objection and vacated the trial date to permit additional discovery on this new issue.
On February 25, 2025, KHBMC moved again for summary judgment—this time arguing absolute immunity under R.C. 2305.51(B), which shields mental health organizations from liability unless there is evidence that a patient or knowledgeable person communicated an explicit threat against a clearly identifiable victim. The trial court agreed with this argument and granted summary judgment for KHBMC.
The appellate court disagreed with both decisions by the lower court: first finding that it was improper to allow such a late amendment without justification or consideration of prejudice to Helton after significant resources had already been expended; second determining that genuine issues of material fact remained regarding whether protective measures were properly executed and whether Tumaini posed an explicit threat to female patients like Helton given his prior conduct.
The opinion explains: “the factual scenario in this case was not one in which [KHBMC]’s staff was unable to predict, warn, or take precautions… Nor were Tumaini’s actions against Helton unforeseeable or beyond [KHBMC]’s reasonable control.” The judges noted evidence showing staff knew Tumaini posed a risk specifically to female patients—including prior inappropriate behavior—and had attempted but allegedly failed to follow through on necessary precautions.
As stated in the conclusion: “Based on the foregoing, we reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand this matter to the trial court for a trial on Helton’s claims.”
Attorneys listed for appellant included Toby K. Henderson, Kaitlyn C. Meeks, and Meghan E. Richmond; attorneys Brianna M. Prislipsky, Susan Blasik-Miller, and Shannon K. Bockelman represented appellee Kettering Medical Center.
Source: 2026Ohio1476_Helton_v_Kettering_Medical_Center_Opinion_Ohio_Court_of_Appeals.pdf
