|
| Case Caption | Case No. | Topics and Issues | Author | Citation / County | Decided | Posted | WebCite |
|
Viola v. N. Royalton
| 2020-00477PQ | The Court denied Requester’s Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment, including a request for a hearing. The Court held that that neither Requester’s motion nor additional material established that Requester had a meritorious claim to present if the Court were to grant the relief that Requester sought. The Court further held that Requester’s motion and additional material did not contain allegations of operative facts that warranted relief under Civ.R. 60(B). | Sheeran | |
8/31/2021
|
9/17/2021
| 2021-Ohio-3239 |
|
Anthony v. Columbus City Schools
| 2021-00069PQ | On Respondent’s objections, the Court overruled Respondent’s objections to a Special Master’s Report and Recommendation and adopted the Report and Recommendation. The Court found that Requester, as an aggrieved person, 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 | |
8/31/2021
|
9/17/2021
| 2021-Ohio-3241 |
|
Skaggs v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
| 2019-00650JD | Medical malpractice; statute of limitations; Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b). Plaintiff, an inmate, filed an action for medical malpractice and unreasonable use of force on May 23, 2019. The magistrate determined that plaintiff’s medical malpractice claim accrued when his prescription medication was changed in 2016 and that his unreasonable use of force claim accrued during a 2016 physical altercation. The magistrate then found that plaintiff’s claims fell outside the one-year statute of limitations for medical malpractice claims and the two-year statute of limitations for unreasonable use of force claims. Consequently, the magistrate recommended judgment in favor of defendant. Plaintiff objected to the magistrate’s decision regarding his medical malpractice claim. The judge found that the magistrate correctly construed plaintiff’s claim as one for medical malpractice because defendant’s acts arose in the course of medical diagnosis, care or treatment. Further, the judge found that plaintiff’s cause of action accrued when defendant’s medical staff altered his medication in 2016. As a result, the judge found no error in the magistrate’s conclusion that plaintiff’s medical malpractice claim was time-barred. The judge overruled plaintiff’s objections, adopted the magistrate’s decision, and entered judgment in favor of defendant. | Sheeran | |
8/18/2021
|
9/13/2021
| 2021-Ohio-3140 |
|
Parks v. McClain
| 2021-00169PQ | On Requester’s objections, the Court overruled Requester’s objections to a Special Master’s Report and Recommendation, adopted the Report and Recommendation, and rendered judgment on behalf of Respondent. The Court held that, notwithstanding Requester’s claims of error, the Special Master had identified the pertinent issues and reached the correct legal determination based on the ordinary application of statutory law and case law, as they existed at the time of the filing of the complaint. | Sheeran | |
8/17/2021
|
9/17/2021
| 2021-Ohio-3243 |
|
Knapp v. Ohio Dept. of Health
| 2021-00191PQ | On Respondent’s objections, the Court overruled Respondent’s objections to a Special Master’s Report and Recommendation, adopted the Report and Recommendation, and ordered Respondent to forthwith provide Requester with requested records in accordance with the Special Master's recommendation. 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, but Requester was not entitled to recover attorney fees. Notwithstanding Respondent’s objections, the Court found that the Special Master identified the pertinent issues and reached the correct legal determination based on the ordinary application of statutory law and case law, as they existed at the time of the filing of the complaint. | Sheeran | |
8/12/2021
|
9/17/2021
| 2021-Ohio-3244 |
|
HSH Investigations, L.L.C. v. Stark Cty. Sheriff's Office
| 2021-00285PQ | On Requester’s objections, the Court overruled Requester’s objections to a Special Master’s Report and Recommendation, adopted the Report and Recommendation, and denied Respondent’s motion to dismiss in accordance with the Special Master’s recommendation. The Court held that, notwithstanding Requester’s objections, the Special Master had identified the pertinent issues and reached the correct legal determination in the Report and Recommendation based on the ordinary application of statutory law and case law, as they existed at the time of the filing of the complaint. | Sheeran | |
8/3/2021
|
9/17/2021
| 2021-Ohio-3246 |
|
Anthony v. Columbus City Schools
| 2021-00069PQ | Core Terms: public record; R.C. 149.43; court of claims; R.C. 2743.75; non-existent; data; system; database; reasonable period of time. Overview: Requester sought a specific dataset of elementary school teacher absences and substitute teacher coverage for a three-year period. The special master found that respondent possessed the raw absence and substitute data, but its computer system was incapable of producing the requested dataset using existing programming. The special master concluded that the requested record did not exist for the purpose of a public records request. The special master further found that respondent had failed to timely provide the requester with an explanation for its denial or an opportunity to revise the request. | Clark | |
8/2/2021
|
9/17/2021
| 2021-Ohio-3242 |
|
Grier v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
| 2020-00659JD | 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 knee injury upon his transfer to a new facility. 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 | |
7/30/2021
|
9/17/2021
| 2021-Ohio-3240 |
|
Kostelac v. Univ. of Akron
| 2019-01037JD | Civ.R. 56(C), negligence. Plaintiff, a former student of defendant and former member of defendant’s basketball team, filed an action asserting that defendant was liable to him for damages after being assaulted by another member of the basketball team. The court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s claim for negligence, finding that plaintiff did not present any evidence to show that defendant breached its duty of reasonable care owed to protect plaintiff because the criminal act of the other player was unforeseeable to both plaintiff and defendant. | Sheeran | |
7/28/2021
|
9/17/2021
| 2021-Ohio-3237 |
|
Nachowitz v. Miami Univ.
| 2021-00192JD | Employment discrimination, religious discrimination, statute of limitations, R.C. 4112.02, R.C. 2743.16. Plaintiff alleged that he was denied tenure because of his religion. The court granted summary judgment to defendant because plaintiff filed suit a few months beyond the two-year statute of limitations set forth in R.C. 2743.16. The court held that R.C. 2743.16 trumped the longer, six-year statute of limitations for discrimination claims brought pursuant to R.C. 4112, et seq. | Sheeran | |
7/28/2021
|
9/17/2021
| 2021-Ohio-3245 |
|