|
| Case Caption | Case No. | Topics and Issues | Author | Citation / County | Decided | Posted | WebCite |
|
Whitehead v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. Bur. of Record Mgt.
| 2020-00116PQ | On requester’s objections to a supplemental report and recommendation, the court overruled requester’s objections and adopted the supplemental report and recommendation. The court found that, notwithstanding requester’s objections, a special master correctly concluded that R.C. 5120.21(F) applied to remaining records withheld by respondent. | Sheeran | |
5/6/2021
|
6/4/2021
| 2021-Ohio-1900 |
|
Miller v. Ohio Dept. of Health, Vital Statistics
| 2020-00618PQ | On respondent’s objections to a report and recommendation, the court overruled respondent’s objections and adopted the report and recommendation. The court ordered respondent to forthwith provide requester with requested records in accordance with a special master's recommendation. 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 | |
5/4/2021
|
6/4/2021
| 2021-Ohio-1901 |
|
WCPO-TV v. Ohio Dept. of Health
| 2020-00513PQ | On respondent’s objections to a special master’s report and recommendation, respondent’s motion to stay all proceedings, and requester’s motion to strike respondent’s objections, the court overruled respondent’s objections, denied requester’s motion to strike, found respondent’s motion to say was not well-taken, and adopted the special master’s report and recommendation. The court determined that requester had been shown to be an aggrieved requester. The court further determined that requester was entitled to receive 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 | |
4/29/2021
|
5/4/2021
| 2021-Ohio-1566 |
|
Mentch v. Cleveland
| 2020-00535PQ | On requester’s amended objections, the court overruled the amended objections and the court adopted, in part, the special master’s report and recommendation. The court found that requester’s amended objections were not cognizable under R.C. 2743.75 because requester’s amended objections failed to concern a claim that was contained within requester’s complaint. The court determined that the special master’s recommendation to dismiss claims in the complaint as moot should not be disturbed because requester’s amended objections did not challenge this recommendation. | Sheeran | |
4/29/2021
|
5/4/2021
| 2021-Ohio-1567 |
|
Ferrell v. Ohio State Univ. Med. Ctr.
| 2018-00002JD | Plaintiffs asserted claims of medical negligence, lack of informed consent, loss of "services/consortium," and a claim that Civ.R. 10 is unconstitutional following the birth of Cameroun Ferrell. Megan Ferrell, who was at the time pregnant with Cameroun Ferrell, visited Defendant’s hospital for delivery. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant was negligent in the delivery of Cameroun Ferrell resulting in Cameroun Ferrell developing Cerebral Palsy and suffering injury as a result of the delivery. The case proceeded to trial on Plaintiffs’ claims. The Court found that after considering the evidence submitted, it was unable to determine the proximate cause of Cameroun Ferrell's injuries. The Court concluded that Plaintiffs failed to prove their claims by a preponderance of the evidence. The Court further concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider whether Civ.R. 10 is unconstitutional. Accordingly, judgment was rendered in favor of Defendant. | Crawford | |
4/28/2021
|
6/4/2021
| 2021-Ohio-1899 |
|
Noll v. Univ. of Akron
| 2020-00568PQ | A special master issued a report and recommendation to which neither party filed timely objections. The court adopted the report and recommendation after the court determined that there was no error of law or other defect evident on the face of the report and recommendation. | Sheeran | |
4/20/2021
|
5/4/2021
| 2021-Ohio-1565 |
|
Whitehead v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
| 2020-00116PQ | public record; R.C. 149.43; court of claims; R.C. 2743.75; inmate records; former; deceased; R.C. 5120.21(F). The court remanded the case to the special master for determination of whether the exception in R.C. 5120.21(F) for “records of inmates committed to the department of rehabilitation and correction” should apply to an inmate who was formerly committed to ODRC. Based on the holding in State ex ref. CNN, Inc. v. Bellbrook-Sugarcreek Local Sch., Slip Opinion No. 2020-0hio-5149 regarding similar language in R.C. 3319.321(B), the special master found that R.C. 5120.21(F) applies to inmate records despite the status of the individual as a former or deceased inmate at the time of the request. | Clark | |
4/15/2021
|
5/7/2021
| 2021-Ohio-1600 |
|
Williams v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
| 2019-00884JD | Negligence; res ipsa loquitor; magistrate; Civ.R. 53. Plaintiff, an inmate, filed an action asserting that defendant was negligent in securing his wheelchair while transporting plaintiff resulting in plaintiff falling and hitting his head while being transported. Plaintiff asserted that if the restraints that defendant used to secure his wheelchair were properly secured, he would not have fallen. The magistrate found that the restraints were under the exclusive control of the defendant and that if ordinary care was used in restraining plaintiff’s wheelchair, plaintiff would not have fallen. The magistrate determined that defendant was negligent under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor. Plaintiff’s damages included a temporary wound, pain, discomfort, and the cost of Tylenol. Therefore, the magistrate found in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of $1,000.00. | Sheets | |
4/14/2021
|
6/4/2021
| 2021-Ohio-1898 |
|
McDougald v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
| 2020-00081JD | Negligence; statute of limitations; R.C. 2743.16; summary judgment. The court found that the negligence claim raised by plaintiff was filed outside of the two (2) year statute of limitations. Plaintiff inmate asserted negligence based on a use-of-force incident and the subsequent medical treatment that occurred in 2016. Plaintiff also claimed defendant was negligent in failing to follow its own policy of retaining video footage for fourteen (14) days. The court found that any claim arising from the use-of-force was time-barred as the act occurred more than two (2) years prior to the filing of plaintiff’s complaint. The court further found that plaintiff was not negligent in recording over existing video that was not related to any investigation as it followed existing internal policies. Judgment rendered in favor of defendant. | Sheeran | |
4/5/2021
|
6/4/2021
| 2021-Ohio-1897 |
|
WCPO-TV v. Ohio Dept. of Health
| 2020-00513PQ | public record; R.C. 149.43; court of claims; R.C. 2743.75; non-existent; data; system; database; R.C. 3705.23; death certificate; R.C. 3701.17; protected health information. Requester sought 1) the number of COVID-19 deaths of residents of a named long-term care facility with public information of decedents, and 2) the number of COVID-19 deaths of residents of facilities identified only as located in four counties. Respondent claimed its databases were not programmed to produce the precise content and groupings sought by requester, and that releasing the requested content would be disclosure of protected health information prohibited by R.C. 3701.17. The special master found that respondent’s electronic death registration system (EDRS) was capable of producing the requested output as to the first request. The special master further found that the contents of individual death certificates printed from the EDRS are required to be disclosed without restriction under R.C. 3705.23, and that the same public data from the same database is likewise not subject to the exception in R.C. 3701.17 when aggregated in a report. The special master further found that the requested dataset in the second request would require combining data from multiple databases, and that respondent’s data systems were not capable of producing the response using existing programming. The special master concluded that the requested compilation was thus not an “existing” record. The special master found that respondent had failed to provide the required opportunity for requester to revise the second request through an explanation of records maintenance and access and encouraged the parties to cooperate fully in any future revision. | Clark | |
4/1/2021
|
4/6/2021
| 2021-Ohio-1151 |
|