| Case Caption | Case No. | Topics and Issues | Author | Citation / County | Decided | Posted | WebCite |
|
Gibson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
| 2019-01160JD | Notice of impending assault; Civ.R. 53; objection to magistrate’s decision; damages. Plaintiff, formerly an inmate under the custody and control of defendant, asserted that defendant was negligent in failing to protect him from an attack by another inmate while incarcerated. The magistrate found that defendant had constructive notice of the impending assault and was liable to plaintiff for damages. However, the magistrate found that plaintiff’s superficial injuries were temporary and minor, and that plaintiff failed to prove by preponderance of the evidence that the assault was also responsible for causing plaintiff’s ongoing migraines. Plaintiff objected to magistrate’s decision but provided no basis for overturning findings of magistrate. Judgment entry adopting magistrate’s decision. | Sheeran | |
4/22/2022
|
5/31/2022
| 2022-Ohio-1821 |
|
Hicks v. Union Twp., Clermont Cty., Trustees
| 2022-00024PQ | public record; R.C. 149.43; court of claims; R.C. 2743.75; attorney-client; privilege; waiver; R.C. 149.43(A)(1)(p); R.C. 149.43(A)(7); R.C. 149.43(A)(8); personal; privacy. Requester sought all documents from a meeting of respondent trustees. Respondent redacted portions of the records as alleged confidential attorney-client communications or confidential personal information. The special master found that most of the emails consisted of cover letters, pleasantries, scheduling, and other non-legal information. With few exceptions, the special master found respondent failed to show that redacted email content fell squarely within the common-law attorney-client privilege. The special master further found that one email string had been disclosed to third parties, waiving the attorney-client privilege. The special master further found that redacted information from an employee bio sheet went beyond the four names that were the only items falling squarely within the “designated public service worker residential and familial information” exemption defined in R.C. 149.43(A)(8). | Clark | |
4/21/2022
|
5/13/2022
| 2022-Ohio-1618 |
|
Coomer v. Opportunities for Ohioans with Disabilities
| 2019-00086JD | R.C. 2743.18(B). Plaintiff filed a motion requesting the Court award her supplemental attorneys’ fees and costs associated with Defendant’s appeal and post-judgment interest. After finding the request for supplemental fees and costs was reasonable, the Court found Plaintiff was entitled to $23,865.00 in supplemental attorneys’ fees and costs associated with the appeal. However, the Court found that the plain language of R.C. 2743.18(B)(2) specifically precludes post-appeal recovery of post-judgment interest in tort actions. Because Plaintiff’s claims sound in tort, the Court denied Plaintiff’s request for post-appeal post-judgment interest. | Crawford | |
4/20/2022
|
5/31/2022
| 2022-Ohio-1819 |
|
Morrison v. Law Dir. of Mt. Vernon
| 2022-00023PQ | public record; R.C. 149.43; court of claims; R.C. 2743.75; non-existent; identical; non-record; metadata. Requester sought all communications from named council employees regarding an identified topic. Respondent advised that it searched for, located, and produced all requested records. Requester’s complaint asserted that additional records existed. The special master found that requester failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that any additional, non-identical records existed. | Clark | |
4/19/2022
|
5/13/2022
| 2022-Ohio-1617 |
|
Grant v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
| 2022-00114PQ | On Requester’s objections to a Special Master's Recommendation To Dismiss Requester’s complaint without prejudice, the Court overruled Requester’s objections. In accordance with the Special Master's recommendation, the Court sua sponte dismissed Requester’s Complaint without prejudice pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(D)(2). | Sheeran | |
4/19/2022
|
5/13/2022
| 2022-Ohio-1619 |
|
Barack v. Thalman
| 2021-00228PQ | On Respondent’s objections to a Special Master's Report and Recommendation, the Court sustained the objections, but for reasons different than those asserted by Respondent. The Court did not adopt the Report and Recommendation. | Sheeran | |
4/12/2022
|
5/13/2022
| 2022-Ohio-1614 |
|
Sandusky Register v. Cedar Point Police Dept.
| 2021-00528PQ | In accordance with a Special Master's recommendation, and absent objections by the parties, the Court sua sponte dismissed Requester's complaint without prejudice pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(D)(2). | Sheeran | |
4/6/2022
|
5/13/2022
| 2022-Ohio-1615 |
|
Citak v. Ohio State Univ., Office of Univ. Compliance & Integrity
| 2021-00563PQ | After neither party timely filed written objections 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. The Court denied Requester's claim for disclosure of certain records withheld by Respondent. | Sheeran | |
4/6/2022
|
5/13/2022
| 2022-Ohio-1616 |
|
Hinton v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Servs.
| 2021-00063JD | Civ.R. 56(C), R.C. 4112. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff Guess’ claim for retaliation and Plaintiffs’ claims for racial discrimination and hostile work environment created by racial harassment. The Court found that Plaintiff Guess’ retaliation claim was time-barred. Additionally, the Court found that Plaintiffs could not establish that Defendants treated a non-protected, similarly-situated person more favorably. Also, the Court found that Plaintiffs could not establish that any alleged harassment was severe enough to create a hostile work environment or that it was based on race. Because there was no genuine issues of material fact that Plaintiffs could not establish their prima facie cases, the Court found that Defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Plaintiffs’ claims. | Sheeran | |
3/28/2022
|
5/12/2022
| 2022-Ohio-1598 |
|
Carney v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
| 2021-00093JD | Excessive force, inmate, summary judgment, Civ.R. 56. Plaintiff sued defendant alleging that corrections officers used excessive force against him. The uncontradicted evidence that defendant submitted with its motion for summary judgment indicated that plaintiff attacked a corrections officer. Corrections officers, acting with justification and privilege, used an appropriate extent of force necessary to defend the attacked officer and control plaintiff. Summary judgment rendered in favor of defendant. | Sheeran | |
3/28/2022
|
5/12/2022
| 2022-Ohio-1599 |
|
Sandusky Register v. Cedar Point Police Dept.
| 2021-00528PQ | Core Terms: public 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). Overview: Requester media corporation sought a list of officers employed by respondent police department. Respondent failed to provide the records or a written response, and later failed to file its statutory response until ordered twice to do so. Although given permission to file a motion for default judgment and/or a reply, requester did not obtain counsel and failed to include proof of service with documents it submitted. The special master recommended the court dismiss the action without prejudice for requester’s failure to obtain counsel as ordered and for failure to comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure. | Clark | |
3/22/2022
|
4/8/2022
| 2022-Ohio-1193 |
|
Felts v. ODRC S. Ohio Corr. Facility
| 2021-00538PQ | After neither party timely filed written objections 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. The Court denied Requester's claim for production of records for failure to show that the requested record existed in Respondent's keeping. | Sheeran | |
3/22/2022
|
4/8/2022
| 2022-Ohio-1194 |
|
Rinker v. Ohio State Racing Comm.
| 2019-00525JD | Retaliation; discrimination; Civ.R. 53; objections to magistrate’s decision. Plaintiffs, employees of the Ohio State Racing Commission (OSRC), objected to the magistrate’s decision recommending judgment for defendant. Plaintiffs alleged OSRC retaliated against them for engaging in the protected activity of filing a discrimination complaint with the Ohio Department of Administrative Services Office of Equal Opportunity (OEO). After a review of the magistrate’s decision and the evidence submitted, the court found that the retaliatory actions alleged by plaintiffs were insufficient to dissuade an employee from alleging discrimination. Further, the court found that these actions were supported by legitimate business purposes. Accordingly, the court overruled plaintiffs’ objections to the magistrate’s decision and rendered judgment for defendant. | Sheeran | |
3/18/2022
|
5/12/2022
| 2022-Ohio-1595 |
|
Morris v. Ohio Dept. of Transp.
| 2018-00991JD | Negligence; magistrate; Civ.R. 53(C); proximate cause. Plaintiff asserted that defendant was negligent in the placement and maintenance of road lines which caused plaintiff to sustain injuries when another motorist turned and hit her motorcycle. Plaintiff asserted that there should have been a solid yellow line at the place of her accident when there was a yellow skip line and that ODOT was negligent when it placed the skip line there. Plaintiff also asserted that there should not have been a solid white line at the location of her accident. The magistrate determined that plaintiff failed to prove that the presence or absence of any lines was the proximate cause of her injuries. Therefore, the magistrate recommended judgment in favor of the defendant. | Shaver | |
3/16/2022
|
5/12/2022
| 2022-Ohio-1594 |
|
Citak v. Ohio State Univ.
| 2021-00563PQ | public record; R.C. 149.43; court of claims; R.C. 2743.75; non-existent; R.C. 149.43(A)(1)(m); R.C. 149.43(A)(5); intellectual property. Requester sought crosstabs and participant responses from certain research polls associated with respondent. Respondent asserted it had provided all existing records that could be characterized as “crosstabs,” and that the participant responses were exempt as intellectual property records. Requester provided no evidence that additional crosstab records existed but argued that the intellectual property exemption defined by R.C. 149.43(A)(5) had been waived by publication of academic papers based on the survey results, and through the publication peer review process. The special master found respondent had provided sufficient evidence that the survey results had not been disclosed to the public and that the records otherwise fell squarely within the exemption. | Clark | |
3/11/2022
|
4/8/2022
| 2022-Ohio-1195 |
|
Baldwin-Nazarene v. Wyoming Tax Dept.
| 2022-00076PQ | The Court sua sponte dismissed Requester’s complaint for being declared a vexatious litigator pursuant to R.C. 2323.52. | Sheeran | |
3/10/2022
|
4/8/2022
| 2022-Ohio-1196 |
|
Barack v. Thalman
| 2021-00228PQ | public record; R.C. 149.43; court of claims; R.C. 2743.75; non-existent; burden of proof; evidence. Requester sought records including paper, email and text correspondence among city employees on a named subject. Respondent city provided no records prior to the filling of the complaint. During litigation respondent asked two employees for responsive records from their personal devices and provided other responsive records to requester, eleven months after the request was made. Respondent did not attempt to locate records from any other employees’ personal device but admitted that such records “may or may not” exist. Requester asked that respondent be ordered to check with all employees for responsive records in conformity with case law and respondent’s public records policy but could not provide direct evidence that additional records existed. The special master found that the eleven-month delay in providing any records or explanation of denial violated respondent’s duty to provide records within a reasonable amount of time. The special master found that the respondent’s excuse of lack of staffing, change in administration and “the complications of Covid” did not excuse it from statutory records obligations that other municipalities continued to comply with during the same period. The special master recommended the court order respondent to locate and produce all responsive records kept in the private devices or accounts of any former or current employee listed in the request. | Clark | |
3/9/2022
|
4/25/2022
| 2022-Ohio-1355 |
|
Schwind v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
| 2020-00314JD | Medical Malpractice; Negligence; Expert Testimony; Civ.R. 56; Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody and control of defendant, brought claim asserting defendant was medically negligent in its failure to adequately address plaintiff’s shoulder and back injuries while incarcerated. The court held that in order to sustain a claim for medical negligence, a party must proffer the testimony of a medical expert to establish the recognized standard of care. The evidence demonstrated that plaintiff failed to provide an expert witness to establish the required elements of his medical negligence claim. Therefore, the court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment. | Sheeran | |
3/9/2022
|
5/12/2022
| 2022-Ohio-1597 |
|
Grant v. Ohio Dept. of Rehabilitation & Corr.
| 2022-00114PQ | public record; R.C. 149.43; court of claims; R.C. 2743.75; dismiss. Requester alleged that over 115 partly overlapping records requests had not been fulfilled by respondent. The special master determined that the number of records, types of violations, and factual and legal issues were inconsistent with the statutory purpose, timelines, and procedures provided in R.C. 2743.75. The special master recommended the complaint be dismissed under R.C. 149.43(D)(2) without prejudice to filing under R.C. 149.43(C)(2). | Clark | |
3/8/2022
|
4/25/2022
| 2022-Ohio-1356 |
|
Doe v. State Med. Bd. of Ohio
| 2022-00077JD | Preliminary injunction; abuse of process; jurisdiction. Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunctive relief in her case against defendant for abuse of power and a declaratory judgment. The court found that plaintiff failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits because she failed to provide any evidence for the second element of a claim for abuse of power, that the proceeding has been perverted to attempt to accomplish an ulterior purpose for which it was not designed. The court determined that since she failed to provide such evidence, it did not need to evaluate plaintiff’s likelihood of success for the declaratory judgment, an equitable claim, because the court would not have jurisdiction over this case if plaintiff was unable to prove her claim for abuse of power. Therefore, plaintiff’s motion was denied. | Sheeran | |
3/4/2022
|
5/12/2022
| 2022-Ohio-1600 |
|
Scott v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
| 2020-00164JD | Defamation; qualified privilege. Plaintiff, a former inmate, filed a claim alleging defendant defamed him by creating a report that stated he was involved in a drug ring while in defendant’s custody. The magistrate found that plaintiff established defamation per se, as the claim in the report was false and made a charge of an indictable offense, was published to third parties involved in the investigation, with fault of at least negligence. However, the magistrate then found that defendant established that “qualified privilege” protected the conduct report. Defendant issued the report in good faith while investigating criminal activity in the prison system, in which defendant has a legitimate interest. Further, defendant only made statements related to the investigation in the report and only published the report to individuals involved in the disciplinary or security review process. Finally, the magistrate found plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the report was issued with actual malice, which is necessary to defeat a qualified privilege defense. Plaintiff did not show that defendants knew in fact or should have known that the statements in the report were false. Consequently, the magistrate recommended judgment in favor of the defendant. | Peterson | |
3/2/2022
|
5/12/2022
| 2022-Ohio-1596 |
|
Felts v. ODRC Southern Ohio Corr. Facility
| 2021-00538PQ | Core Terms: public record; R.C. 149.43; court of claims; R.C. 2743.75; non-existent; burden of proof; evidence. Overview: Requester sought a record of his settlement of a dispute with the respondent facility. Requester alleged the settlement was reduced to writing but provided no evidence that it was in the respondent facility’s possession at the time of the request. Respondent denied that it possessed such a record. The special master found that while respondent had not proven the putative record did not exist somewhere else, it was not required to. The special master found requester had failed to meet his burden to show by clear and convincing evidence the existence of the record in the keeping of the facility from which he requested it. | Clark | |
2/16/2022
|
3/25/2022
| 2022-Ohio-966 |
|
O'Brien v. Dept. of Transp.
| 2015-00785JD | Civ.R. 53, proximate cause. Plaintiff filed objections to the magistrate’s decision recommending judgment in favor of defendant. The court overruled plaintiff’s objections after holding, among other findings, that defendant was not the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries. As a result, the court adopted the magistrate’s decision as its own with modification to reflect the court’s additional analysis. | Crawford | |
2/16/2022
|
3/29/2022
| 2022-Ohio-1026 |
|
Gibson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
| 2019-01160JD | Plaintiff, an inmate in the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction’s (DRC) custody, filed an action against DRC seeking recovery for injuries he sustained when his cellmate assaulted him. Plaintiff stated that his cellmate pulled him off his bunk by the leg, then pushed him, causing him to hit his head. Plaintiff suffered bumps and scratches to his head, shoulders, and abdomen as a result, causing him temporary pain and discomfort. Plaintiff claimed that DRC acted negligently by failing to protect him from assault by his cellmate. The magistrate found that, as plaintiff’s custodian, DRC had a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect plaintiff from unreasonable risks about which defendant knew or should have known. The magistrate determined that defendant should have known that plaintiff’s cellmate was a danger to him. Plaintiff had approached defendant’s employees three times regarding previous hostilities between himself and his cellmate and had requested a bed move, which DRC did not grant. Further, plaintiff’s cellmate had a reputation for a short temper and being hostile towards other inmates and prison staff. The magistrate found that DRC breached its duty of reasonable care by not taking precautions to protect plaintiff from his cellmate, which caused plaintiff to be injured when his cellmate attacked. Accordingly, the magistrate awarded plaintiff judgment in the amount of $1,000 for his temporary pain and discomfort. | Sheets | |
2/11/2022
|
3/29/2022
| 2022-Ohio-1028 |
|
Ohio Records Analysis v. Ohio Dept. of Admin. Servs.
| 2021-00385PQ | After neither party timely filed written objections 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 and found that Requester had not shown by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated R.C. 149.43(B). | Sheeran | |
2/9/2022
|
3/25/2022
| 2022-Ohio-964 |
|
Stubblefield v. Montgomery Cty. Children Servs.
| 2021-00390PQ | The Court denied Requester’s untimely objections to a Special Master’s report and recommendation. The Court did not find any error of law or other defect evident on the face of the Report and Recommendation. The Court adopted the report and recommendation. | Sheeran | |
2/1/2022
|
3/25/2022
| 2022-Ohio-965 |
|
McCoy v. Madison Corr. Inst.
| 2021-00223PQ | On Requester’s objections to a report and recommendation, the Court overruled the objections, adopted the report and recommendation, found that Requester was an aggrieved person under RC. 2743.75(F)(3), and determined that, pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(F)(3)(b), 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 | |
1/27/2022
|
2/4/2022
| 2022-Ohio-313 |
|
Advance Local Media, L.L.C. v. Ohio State Univ.
| 2021-00596PQ | Pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(D)(2), the Court sua sponte dismissed Requester's complaint without prejudice in accordance with a special master's recommendation. | Sheeran | |
1/25/2022
|
2/4/2022
| 2022-Ohio-321 |
|
Feerasta v. Univ. of Akron
| 2020-00617JD | Age discrimination; disability discrimination. Plaintiff filed an action alleging age discrimination and disability discrimination. Defendant formerly employed plaintiff as a tenured professor. Plaintiff is a 68-year-old-man. During the spring of 2020, plaintiff went on medical leave to undergo cardiac surgery. In the summer of 2020, defendant notified plaintiff that he was one of 96 full-time faculty members whose employment was terminated as part of a reduction in force (RIF). Defendant motioned for summary judgment, arguing that plaintiff failed to establish prima facie that the RIF was discriminatory. In the context of an RIF, plaintiffs must proffer direct, circumstantial, or statistical evidence that establishes age was a factor in their termination. Plaintiff alleged that his supervisors’ inquiries into whether he might soon retire and the fact that only 15% of terminated employees were under the age of 40 constituted evidence of defendant’s discriminatory intent. The court found that defendant’s university-wide RIF was conducted out of economic necessity, which constitutes a legitimate, non-discriminatory purpose for plaintiff’s termination. Accordingly, defendant’s motion for summary judgment was granted and judgment was entered in defendant’s favor. | Sheeran | |
1/25/2022
|
3/7/2022
| 2022-Ohio-653 |
|
Bates v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
| 2021-00042JD | Motion for summary judgment; Civ.R. 56(B) and (C). Plaintiff, an inmate, filed this claim after he injured himself on a rusty nail in defendant’s facility. Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment to which plaintiff failed to respond. Defendant submitted affidavits from the warden, unit management chief, and building construction superintendent from the facility where plaintiff was injured which stated that defendant had no notice of the nail, that there was no work order from plaintiff’s cell for a rusty nail, and that it is defendant’s practice to check each cell for defects before placing an inmate in a cell. Therefore, the court found there were no genuine issues of material fact, and that defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Judgment was rendered in favor of the defendant. | Sheeran | |
1/12/2022
|
3/7/2022
| 2022-Ohio-652 |
|
Ohio Records Analysis v. Ohio Dept. of Adm. Servs.
| 2021-00385PQ | public record; R.C. 149.43; court of claims; R.C. 2743.75; non-existent; database. Requester sought lists of MARCS radio ID’s, Talkgroup numbers, and Channel Names associated with the City of Columbus. Respondent denied that it possessed the lists and asserted that in any case the information would be exempt as security and infrastructure records. The special master found requester had failed to show that respondent could produce the requested lists from a single database using existing programming and further found that respondent had no duty to create a new record. | Clark | |
1/12/2022
|
2/4/2022
| 2022-Ohio-316 |
|
Portsmouth Daily Times v. New Boston
| 2021-00414PQ | After neither party timely filed written objections to a report and recommendation, the Court determined that there was an error of law or other defect evident on the face of the report and recommendation as to the issue of a lack of jurisdiction. The Court adopted, in part, the report and recommendation, granted Respondent's motion to dismiss, and rendered judgment in favor of Respondent. | Sheeran | |
1/11/2022
|
2/4/2022
| 2022-Ohio-317 |
|
Parks v. Blanchester Bd. of Pub. Affairs
| 2021-00524PQ | After neither party timely filed written objections 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. | Sheeran | |
1/11/2022
|
2/4/2022
| 2022-Ohio-319 |
|
Hawley v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
| 2015-00042JD & 2015-00043JD | Trial; Objections to Magistrate’s Decision; Civ.R. 53(D); Expert testimony; Res Ipsa Loquitor; Negligence. After trial, plaintiffs filed objections to magistrate’s decision. Plaintiffs’ objections to the magistrate’s factual findings were overruled as the court held that the evidence presented at trial was credible and that plaintiffs were presented a chance to cross-examine witnesses. Additionally, the court overruled plaintiffs’ objections to the magistrate’s legal conclusions. The court overruled these objections, holding that the magistrate did not err and that the law was applied appropriately in this case. The court adopted the magistrate’s decision. Judgment in favor of defendant. | Sheeran | |
1/10/2022
|
3/7/2022
| 2022-Ohio-651 |
|
Ames v. Bencze
| 2021-00429PQ | After neither party timely filed written objections 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. | Sheeran | |
1/6/2022
|
2/4/2022
| 2022-Ohio-318 |
|
Sengstock v. Twinsburg
| 2021-00330PQ | After neither party timely filed written objections 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, found that that Respondent had failed to produce public records in violation of R.C. 149.43((B)(1), ordered Respondent to forthwith disclose certain redacted employee names, as set forth in the report and recommendation, and 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, but Requester was not entitled to recover attorney fees. | Sheeran | |
1/6/2022
|
2/4/2022
| 2022-Ohio-314 |
|
Miller v. Ohio Governor
| 2021-00529PQ | Upon a special master’s recommendation, the Court found that a recommendation to dismiss Requester’s complaint was well taken. The Court concluded that statutory language of R.C. 2323.52(I) (vexatious litigator) required dismissal of the case, absent permission of a common pleas court to file suit or a subsequent overturning of a vexatious litigator finding. The Court overruled Requester’s written objections and sua sponte dismissed Requester’s complaint pursuant to R.C. 2323.52(I) and R.C. 2743.75(D)(2). | Sheeran | |
1/5/2022
|
2/4/2022
| 2022-Ohio-320 |