## Facts

- Edward H. Winter was admitted to St. Francis–St. George Hospital on May 25, 1988 with chest pain and fainting spells and was treated by his private physician, Dr. George E. Russo.
- After discussing treatment, Dr. Russo added a “No Code Blue” notation to Winter’s chart to reflect Winter’s instruction not to be resuscitated; Winter remained on cardiac monitoring.
- On May 28, 1988, Winter experienced ventricular tachycardia while monitored; despite the “No Code Blue” order, a nurse defibrillated and revived him.
- After regaining consciousness, Winter thanked the nurse for saving his life.
- Winter later suffered a stroke on May 30, 1988 that resulted in partial paralysis; he later lived with family and then in a nursing home until his death in April 1990.
- Winter sued the hospital before his death, alleging battery, negligence, and “wrongful living” (damages premised on life-prolonging treatment contrary to his instruction); after his death, the estate administrator, Keith W. Anderson, was substituted as plaintiff.

## Issues

1. Whether Ohio law permits tort recovery premised on a “wrongful living” theory when life-prolonging treatment is administered against a competent patient’s express instructions.
2. Whether “continued living,” as such, can constitute a legally cognizable injury supporting consequential damages.

## Decision

- The Ohio Supreme Court held that Ohio does not recognize “wrongful living” damages and that “continued living” is not a compensable injury in tort.
- The court rejected the proposition that a medical provider is liable for consequential damages on the theory that the patient’s survival itself constitutes the injury.
- The court recognized a competent patient’s protected interest in refusing unwanted medical treatment but limited any potential remedy to traditional tort doctrines rather than damages that require treating life as an injury.

## Legal Principles

- A competent patient has a protected liberty interest in refusing unwanted medical treatment, including life-prolonging interventions.
- “Wrongful living” is not recognized as an independent tort and, as a damages theory, cannot treat the fact of continued life as the injury.
- Courts will not award tort damages that require a factfinder to value continued life as worse than death or nonexistence.
- Claims arising from treatment administered contrary to a patient’s instructions must be grounded in conventional causes of action (e.g., negligence or battery), with damages limited to traditionally cognizable injuries rather than survival itself.

## Conclusion

Ohio law protects patient autonomy to refuse medical treatment, but it does not allow tort damages premised on the idea that continued living is itself a compensable harm; “wrongful living” cannot supply a basis for recovery.


Anderson v. St. Francis-St. George Hosp., Inc., 77 Ohio St. 3d 82 (Ohio 1996)