Opinion Search Filter Settings
Use standard search logic for the Opinion Text Search (full-text search). To search the entire web site click here
Opinion Text Search:   What is Opinion Text Search?
Source:    What is a Source?
Year Decided From:
Year Decided To:    What is Year Decided?
Year Decided Range Warning:
County:    What is County?
Case Number:    What is Case Number?
Author:    What is Author?
Topics and Issues:    What are Topics and Issues?
WebCite No: -Ohio-    What is a Web Cite No.? WebCite and Citation are unique document searches. If a value is entered in the WebCite or Citation field, all other search filters are ignored. If values are entered in both the WebCite and Citation fields, only the WebCite search filter is applied.
Citation:    What is Citation?
This search returned 93 rows. Rows per page: 
12
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
Standifer v. Ohio Dept. of Health 2022-00217PQPublic record; R.C. 149.43; Sup.R. 45; seal; vital statistics; death data; waive; R.C. 3701.17. ODH asked the court to seal a filed copy of a death data printout that it had publicly released five years earlier. ODH argued that in 2019 it had “reassessed” the scope of R.C. 3701.17 and would use that statute to block release of the same data if it were requested today. The special master found that the 2017 release constituted the voluntary relinquishment of any public records exemption that might have applied to the document. The special master further found that the identical death data is available today from both the individual county coroners’ offices where the data originates, and through purchase of individual death certificates from ODH. The special master further found that whatever purpose the general assembly had in enacting R.C. 3701.17, it did not include absolute secrecy of the data in the ODH death certificate master file. The court declined ODH’s invitation to use Sup.R. 45(E) to restrict public access to the document where filed in a public records action to exemplify the department’s past voluntary disclosure of the data.Clark  10/31/2022 11/18/2022 2022-Ohio-4129
Jones v. Vermilion Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn. 2022-00666PQOn a Special Master’s Recommendation To Dismiss, the Court adopted the Special Master's finding of a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction over Requesters' stated causes of action. In accordance with R.C. 2743.75(D)(2), the Court sua sponte dismissed Requesters’ complaint without prejudice.Sheeran  10/25/2022 11/4/2022 2022-Ohio-3949
Brandt v. Solon Police Dept. 2022-00299PQOn Respondent’s objections, the Court overruled Respondent’s objections, adopted a Special Master’s Report and Recommendation, and denied Respondent’s motion to dismiss. The Court ordered Respondent to produce records as detailed in the text and table in the Report and Recommendation, but the Court allowed Respondent to redact exempt items from its records as expressly provided in the Report and Recommendation.Sheeran  10/18/2022 11/4/2022 2022-Ohio-3948
Morrison v. Mount Vernon Law Director's Office 2022-00482PQPublic record; R.C. 149.43; court of claims; R.C. 2743.75; timeliness. Requester repeatedly sought clearly identified records from respondent and received no response of any kind for eleven months. Respondent offered no excuse for the delay. The special master found that the eventual response, two months after the complaint was filed, was vastly beyond a “reasonable period of time."Clark  10/18/2022 11/10/2022 2022-Ohio-4007
Clark v. Twinsburg 2022-00493PQPublic record; R.C. 149.43; court of claims; R.C. 2743.75; request for information; non-existent; moot; timeliness. Requester sought records and answers to questions related to a city construction project. The special master found that all but one request asked for information or answers to questions rather than reasonably identified records. The special master further found that respondent had timely provided requester with all existing responsive records to his one proper request.Clark  10/18/2022 11/10/2022 2022-Ohio-4008
Ryan v. Ashtabula 2022-00533PQPublic record; R.C. 149.43; court of claims; R.C. 2743.75; non-existent; moot; timeliness. Requester made multiple requests for records and answers to questions relating to three criminal cases, and stated he was entitled to any tabs or markers that may have been used in the case files, and demanded respondent update its records retention schedule to include terms suggested by requester. Respondent advised that the requested prosecutor’s notes would be attorney work product if they existed, then provided 210 pages of records that constituted the entire prosecutorial file, and stated it had no duty to modify documents under the public records act. The special master found that the specific prosecutor notes that requester posited had never existed. The special master further found that several requests asked for information or answers to questions rather than reasonably identified records. The special master further found that requester had not proven that he was entitled to tabs or markers, if they existed, from a criminal prosecution file. The special master further found that requester had not shown by clear and convincing evidence that any additional responsive records existed in respondent’s keeping and that the claim for production had been rendered moot prior to the filing of the complaint.Clark  10/18/2022 11/10/2022 2022-Ohio-4009
Assn. of Cleveland Firefighters, Local 83 Intl. Assn. of Firefighters v. Cleveland 2022-00057PQPublic record; R.C. 149.43; court of claims; R.C. 2743.75; request for information; non-existent; quasi-agency; trade secret; timeliness. Requester sought records and answers to questions related to physical examinations of a fire department unit. After three months without a substantive response, requester filed this enforcement action. Respondent argued that most of the requests were for information rather than records and asserted that some responsive records were exempt from release as trade secrets. The special master found that all but two requests were improper requests for information or answers to questions and that records in response to one of the remaining requests did not exist. The special master further found that there was no relationship of quasi-agency between respondent and the contractor performing the physical examinations. The special master further found that respondent had not met its burden to show that the record responsive to the remaining request fell squarely under the exemption for trade secret.Clark  10/13/2022 11/10/2022 2022-Ohio-4006
Lacey v. Ohio Dept. of Transp. 2022-00415JDSummary Judgment, Automobile Collision, Construction Zone, Negligence, Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Ohio Civ. R. 56(C), L.C.C.R. 4(D), R. C. 5537.04(A)(4). Judge granted defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Uncontroverted facts established that the roadway construction which occurred on I-80, the Ohio Turnpike, was not conducted by, nor under the control or jurisdiction of ODOT.Sheeran  10/5/2022 11/4/2022 2022-Ohio-3954
Rose v. State Med. Bd. of Ohio 2022-00373JDSummary Judgment, Ohio Medical Board, Records Request, Medical Malpractice, Negligence, Ohio Civ. R. 56(C), L.C.C.R. 4(D), Statute of Limitations, R.C. 2743.16(A), R.C. 2305.113(A), R.C. 2305.19(A). Judge granted defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. The court determined that prior claims in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas established that plaintiff was aware of the accrual of his claims more than two years prior to filing his complaint. As such, plaintiff’s complaint was barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Similarly, subsequent causes of action in the Montgomery Court of Common Pleas demonstrated that plaintiff availed himself of the savings statute, barring a third cause of action in the Court of Claims.Sheeran  10/5/2022 11/4/2022 2022-Ohio-3952
Warchol v. Superintendent of Washington Local School Dist. 2021-00698PQOn Respondent’s objections, the Court sustained Respondent’s first objection claiming that a special master’s recommendation failed to require the Requester to bear the requisite burden of proof. The Court adopted, in part, and did not adopt, in part, the Special Master’s Report and Recommendation.Sheeran  10/4/2022 11/4/2022 2022-Ohio-3947
Mahle Behr Dayton, L.L.C. v. Ohio Bur. of Workers' Comp. 2021-00706JDSummary Judgment; Civ.R. 56(C); Subject Matter Jurisdiction; Statute of Limitations; Unjust Enrichment; Declaratory Judgment. Plaintiffs alleged defendant improperly distributed rebates from the large deductible program for the 2012, 2013, and 2016 policy years. Plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claims for 2012 and 2013 policy years were barred by the statute of limitations. Defendant was not unjustly enriched during the 2016 policy year because it did not retain any benefit. Moreover, the court did not have jurisdiction over equal protection claims or requests for declaratory judgment to declare a statute or a provision of the administrative code unconstitutional. Therefore, the court granted summary judgment in favor of defendant on plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claims and dismissed plaintiffs’ equal protection claims without prejudice.Crawford  10/3/2022 11/4/2022 2022-Ohio-3953
Jones v. Vermillion Local School Dist. 2022-00666PQpublic record; R.C. 149.43; court of claims; form; R.C. 2743.75; Civ.R. 12(B)(1); jurisdiction; Civ.R. 12(B)(1); failure to state a claim; aggrieved; R.C. 121.22. Relators sought declaratory, mandamus, and injunctive relief relating to alleged violations of R.C. 121.22 and other non-public-records matters. The special master found the court of claims lacked jurisdiction over relators’ stated causes of action. The special master further found relators failed to meet their initial burden of production to plead and prove facts showing they sought an identifiable public record pursuant to R.C. 149.43(B)(1) and had been denied access by the public office. The special master found relators had failed to state a claim for which relief may be granted under both R.C. 149.43(C) and R.C. 2743.75.Clark  9/28/2022 10/20/2022 2022-Ohio-3733
Brandt v. Solon Police Dept. 2022-00299PQpublic record; R.C. 149.43; court of claims; R.C. 2743.75; incident report; attached; incorporated; contemporary; initial; R.C. 149.43(A)(2)(c); investigatory work product; timeliness. Requester sought a police incident report. Respondent provided first one, and then the first nine, pages of the departmental incident report form and asserted the remainder was exempt from release as specific investigatory work product. The special master found that three additional pages of the report, and the videotaped victim interview, and photographs of evidence initially collected, and videotape initially obtained from the crime scene were not investigatory work product, but were all part of the initial incident report and must be disclosed. The special master further found that delay in disclosing the first nine pages of the report for fifteen days violated the requirement that an initial incident report be immediately released upon request.Clark  9/27/2022 10/20/2022 2022-Ohio-3732
Gilmore v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 2021-00515JDSummary Judgment, Inmate, Excessive Use of Force, Battery, Negligence, Ohio Civ. R. 56(C), L.C.C.R. 4(D). Judge granted defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Uncontroverted facts established that corrections officers were privileged to use force and did not use excessive force on inmate who refused to follow orders and became physically aggressive toward another corrections officer.Sheeran  9/26/2022 10/13/2022 2022-Ohio-3652
Shine v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 2021-00460JDMagistrate’s Decision, Civil Immunity, State Employee, Sexual-Harassment, O.R.C. 9.86, O.R.C. 2743.02(F), Scope of Employment. Magistrate recommended that state employee who sexually harassed an independent contractor was not entitled to civil immunity pursuant to O.R.C. 2743.02(F) and O.R.C. 9.86 as such actions were in furtherance of personal libidinal gratification and outside the scope of employment.Van Schoyck  9/21/2022 10/13/2022 2022-Ohio-3651
Carr v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 2021-00083JDMedical Malpractice; Medical Negligence; Standard of Care. Plaintiff asserted defendant’s medical staff was negligent in its treatment and care of his tibial plateau fracture, which resulted in an acute massive saddle pulmonary embolism. Plaintiff contended that defendant’s medical staff breached the standard of care by failing to diagnose him with a deep vein thrombosis and treat with blood thinners that could have prevented the pulmonary embolism. Defendant contended that plaintiff did not present with symptoms of a deep vein thrombosis and the standard of care does not require treatment with blood thinners. The magistrate found defendant’s expert persuasive and recommended judgment in favor of defendant.Peterson  9/21/2022 10/13/2022 2022-Ohio-3649
Datto v. Ohio State Univ. 2021-00339JDSummary Judgment; Civ.R 56; Breach of Contract; Disability Discrimination; Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); Reasonable Accommodation; Retaliation; Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress; Unjust Enrichment. Plaintiff was denied admission to defendant’s college of medicine because he had previously matriculated at another medical school, not because of a disability or his legal action against his prior medical school. Moreover, plaintiff did not request a reasonable accommodation for admission to make himself otherwise qualified under the ADA. As such, plaintiff was never an enrolled student at defendant’s college of medicine and thus no binding contract existed between them. Additionally, defendant’s retention of the application fee was not unjust enrichment because the decision to decline admission was exercised with professional judgment. Lastly, declined admission is not actual, or fear of, physical peril as required for negligent infliction of emotional distress. Therefore, the court issued summary judgment in favor of defendant on all claims.Sheeran  9/20/2022 10/13/2022 2022-Ohio-3650
Hunt Eng., L.L.C. v. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency 2022-00243PQAfter neither party objected to a Special Master’s Report and Recommendation, the Court determined that there was no error of law or other defect evident on the face of the Report and Recommendation. The Court adopted the Report and Recommendation. Because Respondent denied Requester access to public records in violation of R.C. 149.43(B), the Court determined that Requester was entitled to recover from Respondent the amount of the filing fee of twenty-five dollars and any other costs associated with the action that were incurred by Requester, excepting attorney fees.Sheeran  9/13/2022 10/6/2022 2022-Ohio-3557
Hicks v. Union Twp., Clermont Cty. Trustees 2022-00408PQOn Requester’s objections, the Court determined that the Special Master correctly applied statutory law and case law as they existed at the time of the filing of Requester’s Complaint. The Court overruled Requester’s objections, adopted the Report and Recommendation, and denied Requester’s claim for production of records.Sheeran  9/13/2022 10/6/2022 2022-Ohio-3558
Tingler v. Wyandot Cty. Prosecutor's Office 2022-00437PQOn Requester’s objections, the Court overruled objections to a Special Master’s Report and Recommendation and adopted the Report and Recommendation (including a recommendation to deny Requester’s claim for production of records for failure to show that the requested records existed in Respondent's keeping). The Court found that Respondent’s motion to dismiss was moot.Sheeran  9/1/2022 10/6/2022 2022-Ohio-3559
Warchol v. Superintendent of Washington Local School Dist. 2021-00698PQpublic record; R.C. 149.43; court of claims; R.C. 2743.75; FOIA; Covid; moot; ambiguous; overly broad; non-existent; request for information; questions. Requester made a request under the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for all documents regarding a wide range of medical, funding, certification, maintenance, and communication topics. Respondent advised that FOIA did not apply to the office but provided records responsive to certain specific requests. The special master found that although FOIA does not apply to Ohio offices the parties had proceeded as though under the Ohio Public Records Act. The special master further found the claim was moot as to those records provided prior to the special master’s determination. The special master found that respondent had no duty to respond to those portions of the request that asked for research or answers to questions rather than for specific, existing records. The special master further found that, with one exception for funding records that respondent should be ordered to produce, the portions of the request that were not moot were improperly ambiguous and overly broad and failed to reasonably identify the records sought.Clark  8/31/2022 9/8/2022 2022-Ohio-3140
Alford v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 2020-00574JDTrial; Magistrate’s Decision; Negligence; Physical Injury; Inmate; Duty of Care. Negligence actions against supervising Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC) officers who are in a custodial relationship require notice. Following the 10th District’s holding in Morris v. Ohio Dep’t of Rehab. & Corr., 10th Dist. No. 20AP-131, 2021-Ohio-3803, where there is no actual or constructive notice, the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction is not liable for the intentional assault of one inmate on another. Magistrate recommended judgment in favor of defendant.Sheets  8/31/2022 9/26/2022 2022-Ohio-3379
White v. Youngstown State Univ. 2022-00169JDMedical Negligence; Civil Immunity; Dual-Employment; State Employee; O.R.C 2743.02(F); O.R.C. 9.86. Civil immunity in connection with dual-employment status – Magistrate recommended that physician who held a dual status as both a private practitioner and a state employee was not entitled to civil immunity pursuant to R.C. 2743.02(F) and R.C. 9.86 because his actions in the treatment and care of plaintiff’s decedent were in furtherance of his duties as a private practitioner, not a state employee.Sheeran  8/31/2022 9/26/2022 2022-Ohio-3383
Hunt Eng., L.L.C. v. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency 2022-00243PQpublic record; R.C. 149.43; court of claims; R.C. 2743.75; moot; ambiguous; overly broad; waive; explanation; non-existent; timeliness. Requester made three requests collectively seeking communications among 27 persons related in any way to requester and certain financial assistance programs. Respondent provided tens of thousands of documents and advised that no further responsive records existed. The special master found respondent had waived the defense of overbreadth with respect to the second and third requests. However, the special master found that requester failed to show respondent had not provided the explanation required by R.C. 149.43(B)(3) for exemptions that it applied to the records or to show that any additional responsive records existed. The special master found that the claim for production of records was therefore moot. The special master further found that respondent’s initial delays of up to three months to produce any records in response to each request violated its duty of timely response under R.C. 149.43(B)(1).Clark  8/23/2022 9/8/2022 2022-Ohio-3141
Laing v. Wright State Univ. 2021-00597JDNegligence; Motor Vehicle Collision; Immunity Determination; R.C. 2743.02(F); R.C. 9.86; Course and Scope of Employment; Magistrate’s Decision. Plaintiff brought negligence action stemming from a motor vehicle accident with Defendant’s employee, an assistant men’s soccer coach. An evidentiary hearing was held to determine civil immunity and whether Defendant’s employee had acted within the course and scope of his employment with Defendant. Evidence showed that Defendant’s employee’s vehicle struck Plaintiff while backing out of a parking space on his way to purchase snacks for the men’s soccer team away game bus ride, which was a regular and customary practice of Defendant’s assistant men’s soccer coaches. The magistrate recommended that although Defendant’s employee should not be entitled to civil immunity pursuant to R.C. 9.86 and R.C. 2743.02(F) because the incident arose out of the operation of a motor vehicle, the magistrate recommended that Defendant’s employee was acting within the course and scope of his employment with Defendant, and that the action should proceed against Defendant.Sheets  8/22/2022 9/26/2022 2022-Ohio-3382
Michalek v. OSU Wexner Med. Ctr. 2020-00497JDMedical Malpractice; Medical Negligence; Standard of Care; Survivorship Claim; Wrongful Death; Loss of Consortium; Directed Verdict; Civ.R. 50; Proximate Cause; Derivative Claim. Plaintiffs asserted Defendant was negligent in its treatment and care of a high-risk pregnant patient which resulted in her death and the premature birth and injury of her minor daughter. Plaintiffs contended, through expert testimony, that Defendant breached the standard of care by allowing interns to treat the patient without notifying the attending physician and by failing to treat with magnesium sulfate. Defendant was granted, pursuant to Civ.R. 50, a partial directed verdict as to the injuries to the minor daughter. The court found Plaintiffs’ expert persuasive as it related to the negligence of Defendant’s attending physician in failing to supervise treatment. However, the court ultimately found that this negligence was not the proximate cause of the injury and/or death. Moreover, the loss of consortium claim failed because it was a derivative claim. Therefore, the court issued judgment in favor of Defendant.Sheeran  8/17/2022 9/26/2022 2022-Ohio-3378
Diebert v. N. Baltimore Police Dept. 2021-00699PQAfter none of the parties objected to a Special Master’s Report and Recommendation, in a nunc pro tunc entry the Court found no error of law or other defect was evident on the face of the Special Master's Report and Recommendation and the Court adopted the Report and Recommendation. The Court granted, in part, Respondents’ motion to dismiss as to requests of October 20 and 25, 2021. The Court found that (1) the claims for production of records were moot, (2) Requesters had not shown by clear and convincing evidence that any additional responsive records existed, with one exception as stated in the Report and Recommendation, (3) Respondents failed to produce several existing records responsive to the request for procedures on handling complaints against North Baltimore Police Department officers, and (4) Respondents violated R.C. 149.43(B)(1) by not producing the records within a reasonable period of time. The Court determined that Requesters were entitled to recover from Respondents the amount of the filing fee of twenty-five dollars and any other costs associated with the action that were incurred by Requesters, but Requesters were not entitled to recover attorney fees.Sheeran  8/17/2022 9/1/2022 2022-Ohio-3052
Hicks v. Union Twp., Clermont Cty. Trustees 2022-00408PQpublic record; R.C. 149.43; court of claims; R.C. 2743.75; R.C. 149.011(G); non-record. Requester sought email and ground delivery address lists used to deliver township newsletters to residents, businesses, and other interested persons. Respondent attested that the address lists did not themselves document any office duty or function but were maintained only as an administrative convenience. The special master found the address lists were contact information used only for administrative convenience in cost-effective communication to newsletter recipients, and that requester had not shown by clear and convincing evidence that they met the definition of “records.”Clark  8/16/2022 9/8/2022 2022-Ohio-3142
Landers v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 2020-00718JDCiv.R. 53(D), R.C. 9.86, R.C. 2743.02(F), Ohio Adm. Code 5120-9-01(C)(2)(c), civil immunity. Defendant requested a civil immunity hearing as to three of its former employees. After trial, the magistrate found that one officer was not entitled to immunity and two officers were entitled to immunity. Defendant filed an objection arguing that the magistrate erred in finding that two of the officers were entitled to civil immunity. Upon independent review, the Court adopted the magistrate’s finding that the first officer was not entitled to civil immunity. Additionally, the Court sustained Defendant’s objection as to the second officer after finding that he behaved in a wanton and reckless manner and he was not entitled to civil immunity. However, the Court overruled the objection as to the third officer and adopted the magistrate’s decision that he was entitled to civil immunity.Sheeran  8/16/2022 9/26/2022 2022-Ohio-3380
Hairston v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 2021-00567JDNegligence; Civ.R. 56; motions for summary judgment; inmate. Plaintiff, an inmate, filed this claim alleging that a powdered beverage provided by defendant caused him to experience body locks and seizure like symptoms. The court found that plaintiff failed to provide evidence to establish a genuine issue of material fact after defendant properly supported its motion for summary judgment with an affidavit from defendant’s employee stating that there was no notice of any conditions that would cause plaintiff to react poorly to the drink and that plaintiff was free to consume or not consume the drink. The court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment and denied plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment.Sheeran  8/8/2022 9/26/2022 2022-Ohio-3381
Gorslene v. Ohio Dept. of Transp. 2016-00708JDDamages trial, personal injury, preexisting condition, expert testimony, magistrate, Civ.R. 53. Trial was conducted on damages after liability was established. Before plaintiff was struck by an ODOT construction vehicle, he was already being treated for back, knee, and neck pain. The accident caused plaintiff substantial pain in his lower back and knee, but the pain likely resolved within a few weeks and six months, respectively. Plaintiff did not submit meaningful expert testimony sufficient to establish that the accident caused long-term injury. Magistrate recommended damages of $30,000 for pain and suffering, $14,778 for lost wages.Van Schoyck  8/5/2022 9/26/2022 2022-Ohio-3377
Tingler v. Wyandot Cty. Prosecutor's Office 2022-00437PQpublic record; R.C. 149.43; court of claims; R.C. 2743.75; non-existent. Requester sought records relating to a particular death as investigated by a named employee of respondent. Respondent attested that the office did not conduct an investigation of the death and was not in possession of any responsive records. The special master found that requester did not meet his burden to show by clear and convincing evidence that any responsive records existed in respondent’s keeping.Clark  8/3/2022 9/8/2022 2022-Ohio-3143
Little v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 2020-00552JDMedical restriction, bottom range, bottom bunk, inmate, comparative negligence, magistrate, Civ.R. 53. Plaintiff inmate was assigned to an upper range cell despite a bottom range medical restriction due to his multiple sclerosis. He informed the guard, but the guard refused to move him. Plaintiff fell while descending stairs and twisted his ankle. Judgment recommended for plaintiff in the amount of $1,600 after 20% reduction for his comparative negligence.Van Schoyck  7/29/2022 9/2/2022 2022-Ohio-3084
Welin v. Hamilton 2021-00748PQOn Requester’s partial objections, the Court overruled the partial objections to a Special Master’s Report and Recommendation and the Court adopted the Report and Recommendation. In accordance with the Special Master's recommendations, the Court denied Requester’s claim for production of records, found that Respondent failed to provide Requester with certain required information under R.C.149.43(B)(2), and assessed court costs equally between the parties. The Court determined that, pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(F)(3)(b), as an aggrieved person, Requester was entitled to recover from Respondent the amount of the filing fee of twenty-five dollars and any other costs associated with the action that were incurred by Requester, but Requester was not entitled to recover attorney fees.Sheeran  7/28/2022 8/4/2022 2022-Ohio-2660
Smith v. Ohio State Univ. Office of Compliance & Integrity 2021-00400PQOn Respondent’s objections, the Court overruled Respondent's request to grant its motion to dismiss, overruled Respondent's fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh objections to a Special Master's Report and Recommendation, sustained Respondent's second, third, and eighth objections, and determined that Respondent's first objection was moot. The Court adopted, in part, and did not adopt, in part, the Report and Recommendation. The Court ruled that, if Respondent had not already provided the final, approved version of the requests made by Requester in the complaint, as noted in the Court’s Decision and Entry, then Respondent was ordered to do so. Court costs were ordered to be equally divided between the parties.Sheeran  7/28/2022 8/4/2022 2022-Ohio-2657
Diebert v. Lafferty 2021-00699PQpublic record; R.C. 149.43; court of claims; R.C. 2743.75; non-record; non-existent; timeliness. Requester sought police reports and videos from various incidents as well as answers to questions about office policies and decisions. Respondent provided no records, citing technical and staffing issues. During litigation, respondent provided all existing records but denied requesters’ questions and requests for information as non-enforceable. The special master found requesters failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that respondents had not rendered the claims for production moot by providing all existing responsive records, with one exception. The special master found that clear and convincing evidence showed respondents had withheld multiple records responsive to the request for “procedures on handling complaints against” NBPD officers. The special master further found respondents violated their obligation to provide records within a reasonable period of time by not producing any responsive record, many of which were readily available, for more than three months.Clark  7/26/2022 8/22/2022 2022-Ohio-2919
South v. Cleveland State Univ. 2021-00096JDPlaintiff asserts a negligence claim for injuries she sustained after she fell at Defendant’s event center while attending a comedy show. Following a trial before a magistrate, the magistrate recommended judgment in favor of Defendant after finding that Plaintiff failed to establish that Defendant had actual notice or that it failed to conduct a reasonable inspection or otherwise had constructive notice.Sheets  7/25/2022 9/2/2022 2022-Ohio-3087
Browder v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 2021-00328JDImmunity Determination; R.C. 9.86; R.C. 2743.02(F); Magistrate’s decision. Plaintiff, formerly an employee of defendant, brought action against defendant for sexual harassment, hostile work environment, assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and retaliation. Plaintiff alleged that another employee at defendant’s facility where she worked repeatedly sexually harassed plaintiff while she was employed there. An immunity determination hearing was held where plaintiff testified and evidence was presented. The magistrate determined that plaintiff’s testimony was highly credible. The magistrate determined that defendant’s employee acted manifestly outside the scope of his employment and that he should not be entitled to civil immunity pursuant to R.C. 9.86 and R.C. 2743.02(F).Sheets  7/20/2022 9/2/2022 2022-Ohio-3088
Gill v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 2021-00048JDTrial; Magistrate’s Decision; Negligence. Plaintiff inmate brought claim against defendant arising from an incident where plaintiff fell as a result of uneven rocks/concrete on the recreation yard walkway. Plaintiff asserted defendant had actual or constructive notice of the defect, but negligently failed to properly maintain the walkway. At trial, the court found that plaintiff’s claim was unsupported by the evidence provided. The magistrate found the testimony of the building construction superintendent credible. The court granted judgment in favor of defendant.Peterson  7/15/2022 9/2/2022 2022-Ohio-3086
Bautista v. Ohio Univ. 2020-00592JDSummary judgment; Civ.R. 56; Fair Labor Standards Act; Ohio Minimum Wage Fairness Act; 29 U.S.C. 201; R.C. 4111.03; salary basis test. Plaintiff, a former employee of defendant, filed a claim alleging that the defendant’s PCard policy violated the FLSA because it caused her salary to not be paid free and clear. Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. The court found that the university’s PCard policy was unrelated to the employees’ variations in the quality and quantity of work. The court determined that when the evidence was viewed most strongly in favor of plaintiff, reasonable minds could only conclude that there was no genuine issue of material fact that defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Therefore, defendant’s motion for summary judgment was granted.Crawford  7/13/2022 9/2/2022 2022-Ohio-3085
Y-City News v. Tri-Valley Local School Bd. of Edn. 2022-00113PQOn Requester’s objections, the Court sustained, in part, the objections. The Court adopted, in part, a Special Master's recommendations. In accordance with R.C. 2743.75(D)(2), and upon the Special Master's recommendation, the Court sua sponte dismissed Requester’s complaint without prejudice.Sheeran  7/12/2022 8/4/2022 2022-Ohio-2664
Welin v. Hamilton 2021-00748PQpublic record; R.C. 149.43; court of claims; R.C. 2743.75; non-record; non-existent; ambiguous; overly broad; revise. Requester sought copies of any and all records relating to four hydroelectric projects on the Ohio River. Respondent advised that it was a participant in only one of the projects and thus kept no “records” documenting city activities relating to the others. Respondent denied all of the requests as ambiguous and overly broad. The special master found that records of the non-city projects were non-records of the city, and that all of the requests were ambiguous and overly broad in multiple, overlapping ways. The special master further found that the city had violated R.C. 149.43(B)(2) by not providing information as to how it maintained records to assist requester in revising the improper requests.Clark  7/5/2022 8/4/2022 2022-Ohio-2661
Morrison v. Kent State Univ. 2020-00111JDMotion for summary judgment; Civ.R. 56; employment discrimination; R.C. 4112; IIED. Plaintiff filed a claim for employment discrimination after he was terminated from employment from defendant due to a restructuring of the department. Plaintiff also claimed employment discrimination because he was not hired for another position after he was terminated. The court found that plaintiff proved a prima facie case for employment discrimination for both being terminated and not being hired. However, the court determined that plaintiff was unable to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact that defendant’s proffered legitimate reasons for termination, department restructuring, and not hiring plaintiff, the presence of superior candidates, were merely a pretext. The court found that because defendant did not commit employment discrimination, there was no evidence to support a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. Therefore, defendant’s motion for summary judgment was granted.Sheeran  6/30/2022 8/8/2022 2022-Ohio-2730
Person v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 2021-00181JDThe court adopted the magistrate’s decision and recommendation as its own, including findings of facts and conclusions of law and rendered judgment in favor of plaintiff.Sheeran  6/29/2022 8/8/2022 2022-Ohio-2733
Tucker v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 2021-00357JDMotion for summary judgment; Civ.R. 56; L.C.C.R. 4(D); inmate; use of force. Plaintiff, an inmate, filed a complaint for excessive use of force against ODRC. The court found, based on an affidavit from a corrections officer, that when plaintiff refused to remove his hand from the cuff port despite orders to do so, then trapped a corrections officer’s hand in the port, and shortly after, when plaintiff was being escorted to a holding cell, became combative, reasonable minds can only conclude that the COs had the lawful authority and privilege to spray plaintiff twice with OC spray, grab his hand to free the officer’s hand from the cuff port, and take him to the floor. The court granted defendant’s uncontroverted motion for summary judgment.Sheeran  6/29/2022 8/8/2022 2022-Ohio-2735
Scott v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 2020-00164JDMagistrate’s Decision; Civ.R. 53; Objections; Defamation; Qualified Privilege. Plaintiff inmate brought claim against defendant, asserting that defendant defamed him by creating false conduct report naming plaintiff as part of institutional drug conveyance network. At trial, the magistrate found that plaintiff’s claim was unsupported by the evidence provided, and that conduct report created by defendant in an investigation was protected by qualified privilege. Furthermore, plaintiff did not demonstrate that defendant acted with actual malice to defeat the defense of qualified privilege. Plaintiff filed objections to the magistrate’s decision. The court overruled plaintiff’s objections to the magistrate’s decision and granted judgment in favor of defendant.Sheeran  6/7/2022 8/8/2022 2022-Ohio-2732
Person v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 2021-00181JDTrial; Magistrate’s Decision; Negligence; Evidence. Plaintiff inmate brought negligence claim against defendant, asserting that defendant caused plaintiff injury when corrections officers responded to an altercation between other inmates on the upper level of the cell block. Plaintiff alleged that a responding officer lost control of his equipment which fell from the upper range and struck plaintiff in the head. Magistrate found that plaintiff proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the corrections officer’s equipment fell from the upper range and struck plaintiff on the side of his head. The court granted judgment in favor of plaintiff in the amount of $1,275.00.Peterson  6/6/2022 8/8/2022 2022-Ohio-2734
Dillon v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 2020-00158JDDog bite, negligence, R.C. 955.28(B), spoliation of evidence, magistrate, Civ.R. 53. Plaintiff inmate was bitten by a dog while participating in a dog training program. Plaintiff could not bring an action under R.C. 955.28(B) because plaintiff was a keeper of the dog. Plaintiff failed to establish that the dog was vicious or that defendant intentionally destroyed notes regarding the dog in order to disrupt plaintiff’s case. Judgment rendered in favor of defendant.Sheeran  6/6/2022 8/8/2022 2022-Ohio-2731
Lester v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 2018-01200JDThe parties filed objections to the magistrate’s decision recommending judgment in favor of plaintiff. The court overruled plaintiff’s objections after finding that defendant did not ratify its employee’s assault or intentional infliction of emotional distress of plaintiff. The court overruled defendant’s objections after holding, among other findings, that defendant’s actions were not reasonably calculated to end its employee’s harassment of plaintiff and the magistrate appropriately determined plaintiff’s pain and suffering.Sheeran  6/6/2022 8/8/2022 2022-Ohio-2729
Y-City News v. Tri-Valley Local School Bd. of Edn. 2022-00113PQpublic record; R.C. 149.43; court of claims; R.C. 2743.75; corporation; appearance through counsel; pro se; Civ.R. 41(B)(1); R.C. 2743.75(D)(2). Requester media corporation sought text and email records of respondent’s employees. Respondent moved to dismiss because the action was filed on behalf of a corporation by a person not admitted to the Ohio bar. The special master recommended the court dismiss the action without prejudice.Clark  5/17/2022 8/4/2022 2022-Ohio-2665
12