Seal of the State of Ohio. Click here to return to the Supreme Court home page. The Supreme Court of Ohio & The Ohio Judicial System. Click here to return to the Supreme Court home page. Line Drawing of the Ohio Judicial Center. Click here to return to the Supreme Court home page.
Spacer image

The Supreme Court of Ohio & The Ohio Judicial System

Reporter of Decisions - Opinions & Announcements

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?
Search Truncation Warning:
Source:   What is a Source?
Year Decided:   What is Year Decided?
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 88 rows. Rows per page: 
12
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
Hunter v. Bur. of Workers' Comp. 2012-05479Reverse race discrimination; tortious spoliation of documents. Reviewing the facts, the court determined that plaintiff failed to demonstrate that defendant's stated reasons for his termination were pretext. Plaintiff had two active suspensions at the time of his pre-termination transgressions and plaintiff was charged with dishonesty. Dishonesty alone was sufficient to terminate plaintiff with or without the compounding disciplinary grid. No other similarly situated, minority employee had two active suspensions, nor did any other employee commit a dishonest act. Thus, the court found that there was no genuine issue of material fact that while defendant took an adverse action with respect to plaintiff's employment, there was no evidence to support the claim that it discriminated against non-minority employees and/or treated plaintiff disparately than other similarly situated employees. Next, plaintiff alleged that his former supervisor kept records of defendant's alleged discriminatory practices in his office desk, including a document purportedly used for tracking disparate treatment; that it did not provide these documents to plaintiff in response to a discovery request; and that this led to an inference that defendant destroyed these records. Plaintiff provided no evidence to support his belief. Furthermore, the allegedly destroyed records were part of a public records lawsuit in which the Tenth District Court of Appeals found that plaintiff had failed to properly request the records. Because defendant could not produce documents that didn't exist and plaintiff's failure to provide any evidence that the documents in question were intentionally destroyed, the court found no genuine issue of material fact with regard to any documents related to his supervisor. With regard to certain handwritten notes that defendant allegedly destroyed, the court noted that defendant had destroyed the notes according to its retention schedule prior to any requests for preservation. Accordingly, there was no issue of material fact regarding plaintiff's claim for spoliation of evidence. Consequently, the court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment for both claims.Crawford  12/14/2016 1/10/2017 2016-Ohio-8577
Jutte Elec., Ltd. v. Ohio Facilities Constr. Comm. 2014-00318Construction; surety; contract. The court found that plaintiffs failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that their damages were proximately caused by OSFC. Even if plaintiff Jutte was able to prove damages, the Surety failed to prove that it is entitled to any of Jutte's damages or any of its own damages. Finally, even if plaintiffs proved damages were caused OSFC, any damages related to the claims listed in two Article 8 letters were not timely submitted and plaintiffs waived their right to receive compensation for alleged losses incurred due to those claims. Judgment recommended in favor of defendant.Crawford  12/13/2016 1/17/2017 2016-Ohio-8580
Hernandez v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 2016-00150Summary judgment; Civ.R. 56(C); inmate; medical malpractice. The court concluded that plaintiff failed to provide any evidence, much less an affidavit from a medical expert, to controvert the evidence submitted by defendant and demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact. Summary judgment granted in favor of defendant.McGrath  12/5/2016 1/17/2017 2016-Ohio-8581
Mezey v. Ohio Dev. Servs. Agency 2015-00110Wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Plaintiff filed objections to a magistrate's decision. Her first objection challenged the magistrate's factual findings, which supported his determination that she had failed to prove her claim of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. The court noted that pursuant to Ohio law, discharging an employee for consulting an attorney may serve as a basis for the public policy exception to the common law employment-at-will doctrine. Certain exhibits that were part of the record demonstrated that defendant's agent knew that plaintiff had retained counsel prior to her termination. However, because plaintiff did not file a transcript along with her objections to the magistrate's factual findings, under Civ. R. 53, the court was required to accept the magistrate's factual findings and limit its review to the magistrate's legal conclusions. Lastly, with regard to plaintiff's second objection alleging defendant's discharge was based on pretext, the court noted that plaintiff's failure to file a transcript compelled it to again adopt the magistrate's findings of fact. Consequently, upon conducting an independent review, the court adopted the previous magistrate's decision and rendered judgment in defendant's favor.McGrath  12/2/2016 1/10/2017 2016-Ohio-8578
Good v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 2012-08885Negligence. Defendant filed objections to a magistrate's decision recommending an award of damages to plaintiff, an inmate in defendant's custody and control, for $6,025 for defendant's negligence. Upon review, the court found that the magistrates' determination regarding plaintiff's pain and suffering damages following a fall at one of defendant's facilities was supported by competent and credible evidence. The court concluded that the magistrate should be afforded latitude in calculating pain and suffering damages because no mathematical rule existed to determine them. While the magistrate's exercise of discretion in awarding such damages could have been exercised differently, the court was not persuaded that the magistrate's decision warranted modification. Consequently, the court adopted the magistrate's decision.McGrath  11/21/2016 12/22/2016 2016-Ohio-8327
Accurate Elec. Constr., Inc. v. Ohio State Univ. 2014-00961Breach of express and implied warranty; breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing. Plaintiff alleged that defendant breached various express and implied warranties because defendant failed to provide plaintiff with a site upon which plaintiff could perform its work; unreasonably denied plaintiff's legitimate claims for additional compensation; failed to promote teamwork, cooperation, and respect amongst all project contractors; and failed to schedule and coordinate the project. Upon review of the evidence, the court determined that plaintiff's claims based on express and implied warranties were not distinct from its breach of contract claims, which the court had already previously dismissed. Similarly, the court also dismissed plaintiff's duty of good faith and fair dealing claim as this claim could not stand alone as a separate cause of action distinct from a breach of contract claim. Accordingly, the court found no genuine issue of material fact regarding the warranty and goof faith and fair dealing claims and granted defendant's motion for summary judgment.Crawford  11/18/2016 12/22/2016 2016-Ohio-8329
Skorvanek v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 2014-00845Negligence. Plaintiff, an inmate in defendant's custody and control claimed that defendant was negligent in failing to prevent an attack upon him by another inmate. On November 12, 2013, Creech, another inmate in defendant's custody, filled a mug with water and microwaved it for approximately four minutes. Creech then rolled himself in his wheelchair toward the row of beds where he and plaintiff lived, rolled up to plaintiff's bed and stood up, and poured the hot water in plaintiff's mouth and face, who was still sleeping. Upon reviewing the evidence, the magistrate found that defendant did not have actual or constructive notice that the attack was impending. Plaintiff contended that Creech had a disciplinary history and mental illness sufficient to put defendant on notice of an impending attack, but the magistrate found that it was not supported by evidence. Plaintiff had previously spoken to Creech, had not felt that Creech posed a serious threat, and did not notify a staff member about any concern for his safety. Creech had been disciplined for a variety of infractions, but those infractions were accumulated over more than three decades in prison and nearly all of them were non-violent in nature. Based upon annual reviews of Creech's security classification, he was considered to be at the lowest possible security level. While there were records evidencing that Creech was disciplined in 2002 for fighting with another inmate and was disciplined in 2000 for attempting to strike another inmate with a lock attached to a belt over the theft of some cigarettes, these incidents were remote in time-by more than ten years-from the attack on plaintiff. As such, these did not constitute a pattern of violence that could even arguably confer defendant with notice that the attack by Creech was impending at any moment. Moreover, the evidence presented at trial about Creech having received some mental health care or been diagnosed with depression, was no basis to conclude that his attack was foreseeable. Therefore, the magistrate found that plaintiff failed to prove his claims by a preponderance of the evidence and recommended judgment in favor of defendant.Van Schoyck  11/16/2016 12/22/2016 2016-Ohio-8328
Johnson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 2014-00768Inmate; negligence; bifurcated. The magistrate determined that defendant failed to honor plaintiff's lower bunk restriction, and also failed to correct the error at any time before plaintiff fell off the top bunk, injuring himself, even though there were lower bunks that became available during that time. However, plaintiff failed to exercise reasonable care for his own well-being by not making a sufficient effort to try and obtain a lower bunk. Judgment recommended in favor of plaintiff with a 25 percent diminishment in an award for compensatory damages.Van Schoyck  11/3/2016 12/15/2016 2016-Ohio-8141
Cameron v. Univ. of Toledo 2015-00580Negligence; anti-hazing; R.C. 2307.44. The court found that plaintiff, formerly a University of Toledo football player, failed to establish any of the required elements of hazing in the anti-hazing statute; he failed to demonstrate that he was coerced into participating in an act of initiation which posed a substantial risk of physical harm and that defendant knew of the occurrence of hazing. With regard to the negligence claim, the court determined that plaintiff assumed the risk of injury associated with playing the sport of football and, as a matter of law, was prevented from recovering damages for an injury sustained while participating in a football related activity. Judgment in favor of defendant.McGrath  11/1/2016 12/15/2016 2016-Ohio-8142
Colville v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 2015-00711Negligence. Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody and control of defendant at the Pickaway Correctional Institution brought an action alleging negligence. On February 27, 2015, around noon, plaintiff returned to his housing unit from the chow hall and slipped on an accumulation of snow and ice on the stairway, fell to the landing, and slipped a second time as a result of the ice that had formed on the landing. The magistrate found that the landing had not been salted during the month of plaintiff's fall. However, the magistrate also found that plaintiff failed to prove that defendant had actual or constructive notice that the stairway posed an unreasonable risk of harm to plaintiff due to the accumulated ice and snow. Plaintiff did not offer any evidence that defendant was aware of the ice and snow and neither did he inform anyone. It was established that it snowed several days prior to plaintiff's accident, followed by a pattern of warm weather causing the snow to melt. The water then froze on the stairway and landing of the entryway to plaintiff's dorm. The magistrate found that the ice and snow accumulation on the stairway and landing did not exist for such length of time to support a finding that defendant had constructive notice of the condition. Finally, the magistrate found that the proximate cause of plaintiff's fall on the stairway was his own failure to take reasonable care for his own safety because he was aware of the open and obvious condition. Accordingly, the magistrate recommended judgment in defendant's favor.Peterson  10/20/2016 11/30/2016 2016-Ohio-7954
Brooks v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 2012-06181Inmate; bifurcated; damages; negligence. After a trial on the issue of damages, the magistrate recommended that plaintiff be awarded $6,500 in damages for past pain and suffering. The magistrate determined that plaintiff's injuries were temporary and resolved within weeks following an incident with another inmate. Further, there was a lack of evidence to substantiate plaintiff's claims of chronic, severe pain. Judgment recommended in favor of plaintiff.Peterson  10/12/2016 11/18/2016 2016-Ohio-7810
Welser v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 2015-00329Negligence. Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody and control of defendant, brought an action which arose out of an accident he suffered when his left index finger was severed by a perforator in the Ohio Penal Industries print shop at one of defendant's correctional institutions. Upon reviewing the evidence presented at trial, the magistrate found that the perforator had been in use for many years and had some flaws and caused some inconvenience to operators, but it was periodically serviced, was safe to operate, and no one had been injured on it before. The day of the accident, plaintiff determined that the perforator had a mechanical problem and took it upon himself to resolve the issue. He used a wrench to remove the bolts that held the perforator's gear box in place. Ultimately, when plaintiff was unable to resolve the issue, he turned the perforator back on. When he went to turn it off with his right hand, he failed to pay attention to the left hand and inadvertently suck his left index finger in the gears, severing his finger.The magistrate found that the perforator was safe to operate and but for plaintiff's actions, the gear box was shielded by a safety cover that was bolted down to the machine's frame. Plaintiff did not establish that there were any problems with the machine, and in any case, failed to inform a staff member on duty. As such, plaintiff failed to exercise reasonable care for his own safety. Plaintiff also asserted that the staff knew or should have known that inmates operating the perforator were in the practice of removing the cover from the gear box. However, the evidence demonstrated that the removal of the cover was not such a common practice that defendant's agents should have been on notice. Accordingly, the magistrate granted judgment in defendant's favor.Van Schoyck  9/23/2016 10/17/2016 2016-Ohio-7352
Hughes v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 2015-00679Negligence. Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody and control of defendant, brought an action alleging that he was injured from wearing handcuffs that were too small for his wrists. He also alleged that defendant was negligent in delaying or otherwise providing inadequate medical care for his injuries. The magistrate found that defendant did not breach its duty of reasonable care to plaintiff. When the handcuffs were applied to plaintiff, they fit appropriately. Although plaintiff testified that indentations formed in his skin as the day went on, some temporary indentations in the wrist commonly occur when one wears handcuffs for a long period of time. To the extent that plaintiff alleged defendant was negligent in delaying or otherwise providing inadequate medical care, he did not show any unreasonable delay in the medical care and treatment plaintiff received. Consequently, the magistrate recommended judgment in defendant's favor.Van Schoyck  9/20/2016 10/17/2016 2016-Ohio-7353
Ceglia v. Youngstown State Univ. 2013-00454Age discrimination; R.C. 4112.02; bifurcated; liability. The magistrate determined that plaintiff stated a prima facie case of age discrimination. Further, defendant met its burden to produce evidence of a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its rejection of plaintiff, as plaintiff was not the best at paperwork, and his students were not prepared for a subsequent class. Plaintiff failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant's failure to hire him for an open position was based upon his age. Judgment recommended in favor of defendant.Shaver  9/20/2016 10/6/2016 2016-Ohio-7235
Mezey v. Ohio Dev. Servs. Agency 2015-00110Promissory estoppel; wrongful termination in violation of public policy. The magistrate determined that plaintiff failed to prove that defendant's director terminated her position because her attorney sent him a letter demanding an appointment to a full-time position as the evidence showed that the job audit of the Film Office, which reviewed plaintiff's position, began before the initial demand letter arrived at defendant. Further, plaintiff could not reasonably rely on a promise made by a person who lacks the statutory authority to make that promise. Judgment recommended in favor of defendant.Renick  9/20/2016 10/6/2016 2016-Ohio-7236
Stadtler v. Ohio Dept. of Transp. 2016-00377-ADNegligence. Plaintiff filed a complaint against defendant alleging defendant negligently maintained a light pole on I-77 S. The light pole fell on top of plaintiff's van, completely caving in the rear left side of the van's roof and was deemed unrepairable. The clerk found that plaintiff did not provide any evidence by which the court could infer that defendant had actual or constructive notice that the light pole in question was faulty. Consequently, the clerk ruled in defendant's favor.Reed  9/16/2016 11/8/2016 2016-Ohio-7664
Stadtler v. Ohio Dept. of Transp. 2016-00378-ADNegligence. Plaintiff filed a complaint against defendant alleging defendant negligently maintained a light pole on I-77 S. Plaintiff stated that the light pole fell on top of his van and as a result of the accident, plaintiff alleged he suffered headaches, stiffness, and severe pain in his neck and lower back. Plaintiff sought damages in the amount of $10,000 including pain and suffering and had received $1,000 from his insurance policy. The clerk found that plaintiff did not provide any evidence by which the court could infer that defendant had actual or constructive notice that the light pole in question was faulty. Consequently, the clerk ruled in defendant's favor.Reed  9/16/2016 11/8/2016 2016-Ohio-7665
Yurkowski v. Univ. of Cincinnati 2007-04311Wrongful death; loss of consortium. Decedent's wife and two children brought wrongful death and loss of consortium claims, alleging that University of Cincinnati (UC) was negligent in decedent's discharge from its hospital. Decedent eventually committed suicide. The only question before the court was whether the UC doctor's decision to release the decedent from the hospital fell below the applicable standard of care. The court found the testimony of UC's experts more persuasive than plaintiffs' expert. Specifically, the evidence demonstrated that UC's doctor performed a suicide assessment prior to decedent's release and weighed the risks of discharging him during his last inpatient stay at the hospital. The doctor also had a long history and relationship with the decedent, was aware of his tendencies, and used his knowledge to properly evaluated whether or not to allow the decedent's discharge. Moreover, even if the UC doctor breached his duty, the court found that plaintiffs failed to establish proximate cause by a preponderance of the evidence. Plaintiffs' own expert testified that he was not able to identify the proximate cause of decedent's death. Consequently, the court rendered judgment in defendant's favor.McGrath  9/12/2016 10/17/2016 2016-Ohio-7351
Williams v. Univ. of Akron 2016-00199-ADCourt found that plaintiff, an invitee at a University of Akron men's basketball game, failed to demonstrate that defendant did not exercise ordinary care with respect to the seat plaintiff was injured in during the November 16, 2015 game. The court agreed with defendant that the University of Akron had no notice of any defects, either through an outside company's inspection of the arena, visual inspection by defendant's staff, or patron feedback, with regard to the seat in which plaintiff was allegedly injured. Judgment in favor of defendant.Reed  8/18/2016 10/5/2016 2016-Ohio-7209
Byrd v. Supreme Court of Ohio 2016-00274-ADCourt found that plaintiff's claim that defendant's Clerk of Court failed to accept a filing submitted by plaintiff was barred by the public duty doctrine. Additionally, to the extent plaintiff's claims could be construed as constitutional or criminal claims, the court did not have jurisdiction over these claims. Judgment in favor of defendant.Reed  8/18/2016 10/5/2016 2016-Ohio-7210
Dodge v. Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources 2015-00894-ADCourt found that while it appeared that the road plaintiff was required to use to get to his paid campsite at a state park was a charge necessary to utilize the overall benefits of a recreational area, it was not necessary for the court to determine whether plaintiff was a recreational user or not. Even if plaintiff was an invitee and owed a higher standard of care, his case failed because defendant did not have actual or constructive notice of the pothole plaintiff struck on Route 1. Judgment in favor of defendant.Reed  8/18/2016 10/5/2016 2016-Ohio-7206
Early v. Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources 2016-00186-ADCourt found that as a visitor to a state park, plaintiff was a recreational user and defendant owed plaintiff no duty to keep park premises safe for entry and travel. Plaintiff's injury to her left ankle occurred as a result of her use of defendant's premises, not by some direct or indirect act on the part of the state agency. Judgment in favor of defendant.Reed  8/16/2016 10/5/2016 2016-Ohio-7208
Hohenstein v. Ohio Veterans Home 2016-00296-ADCourt found that plaintiff failed to submit any evidence to show that he delivered his dentures to defendant, thereby creating a legal bailment relationship between plaintiff and defendant. Judgment in favor of defendant.Reed  8/16/2016 10/5/2016 2016-Ohio-7211
Phillips v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 2014-00644Inmate; bifurcated; liability; negligence; excessive force; battery. The magistrate determined that the corrections officer involved in an altercation with plaintiff was justified and privileged to use force based upon plaintiff's refusals to comply with orders, combined with plaintiff's threatening body language and demeanor. The degree of force used by the corrections officer was not excessive and satisfied the duty of reasonable care. Judgment recommended in favor of defendant.Van Schoyck  8/16/2016 9/29/2016 2016-Ohio-7061
United Young People Assn. v. Ohio Expositions Comm. 2015-00262Civ.R. 56(B); summary judgment; breach of contract; unjust enrichment. The court determined that plaintiff breached the contract when it failed to properly clean and maintain the restrooms to the satisfaction of OEC, which resulted in CTVs being sent to DAS, and DAS was within its rights under the contract to terminate its relationship with plaintiff for persistent default. The court also found that the parties' relationship was set forth in the contract documents, thus plaintiff's claim for unjust enrichment failed as a matter of law. Defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted.McGrath  8/16/2016 9/29/2016 2016-Ohio-7062
A&H Grocery, L.L.C. v. Ohio Dept. of Health 2015-00848Civ.R. 12(C). The court determined that plaintiff's claim for wrongfully withheld moneys to which it was entitled was one for equitable relief over which the court lacked jurisdiction. Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted.McGrath  8/16/2016 9/29/2016 2016-Ohio-7063
Wood Elec., Inc. v. Ohio Facilities Constr. Comm. 2014-00987Breach of contract. Plaintiff, Wood Electric, Inc. (Wood Electric), contracted with Defendant, Ohio Facilities Construction Commission (OFCC), to do the electrical work on a school project in Dalton, Ohio. Wood Electric's accepted bid was $2,477,414.00. Wood Electric asserted that there were numerous delays in the project caused by the general contractor, which caused it to expend funds in excess of its bid. Wood Electric sought recover $254,027.00. OFCC asserted that while there were delays, they did not proximately cause any damage to Wood Electric. The court found that Wood Electric could seek supplemental damages and damages not contemplated at the time of filing the claim during trial. The court also noted that OFCC had not established their own method for determining home office overhead, and found it reasonable to utilize the HOOP method, which was recognized by the Ohio Department of Transportation. Finally, the court determined that Wood Electric's expert's testimony set forth the damages within a reasonable degree of certainty. Accordingly, it rendered judgment in Wood Electric's favor in the amount of $254,027.00.Crawford  8/12/2016 9/30/2016 2016-Ohio-7120
Hendrickson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 2015-00339Negligence. Plaintiff, formerly an inmate in the custody and control of defendant, brought an action for negligence arising from an accident in which he suffered a steam burn in the course of his work assignment in the kitchen at the Marion Correctional Institution (MCI). The issues of liability and damages were bifurcated and the case proceeded to trial on the issue of liability. Upon considering the evidence presented at trial, the magistrate found that plaintiff was familiar with the operation of the two steam kettles in the kitchen, including the fact that each kettle automatically released steam from a release valve when the pressure inside the kettle reached a certain point. By placing his foot underneath the release valve, plaintiff failed to exercise appropriate care for his own safety, and this was the proximate cause of the injury. There was only a small space between the release valve and the floor which plaintiff needed to avoid, and it was not necessary for him to have his foot there in order to perform his clean-up duty of cleaning the wall. Consequently, the magistrate found that plaintiff failed to prove his claims by a preponderance of the evidence and recommended judgment in favor of defendant.Van Schoyck  8/12/2016 9/30/2016 2016-Ohio-7121
Wright v. S.E.A.R.C.H. 2015-00967Negligence. Defendant, North West Community Corrections Center (NWCCC) (which plaintiff incorrectly identified as S.E.A.R.C.H.), filed a motion for summary judgment because it is a community-based corrections facility and is not considered the state or state agency as defined by R.C. 2743.01(A). While defendant receives partial funding from the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC), it is not controlled or operated by ODRC. Consequently, defendant alleged that the Court of Claims did not have subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff's claims. Viewing the matter in light most favorable to plaintiff, the court found that there was no genuine issue of material fact and that NWCCC was not the state as defined under R.C. 2743.01, and granted defendant's motion.McGrath  8/9/2016 9/30/2016 2016-Ohio-7122
Milburn-Shook v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol 2016-00149-ADCourt found that plaintiff failed to provide enough facts for the court to ascertain that by not checking the box on the BMV 2255 form, defendant's agent breached a duty of care toward plaintiff and that breach proximately caused her injures. Judgment in favor of defendant.Reed  8/4/2016 10/5/2016 2016-Ohio-7207
Suburban Maintenance & Constr. v. Ohio Dept. of Transp. 2014-00506Civ.R. 53; construction; breach of contract. Ruling on objections to the referee's decision, the court overruled all of defendant's and plaintiff's objections. The court agreed with the referee's legal conclusions regarding the contract interpretation and any ambiguity. The court determined that any errors or omissions in the bid documents did not emerge until the project was underway, thus plaintiff did not waive any contract ambiguities. The court adopted the referee's decision and recommendation as its own, including conclusions of law contained therein. Judgment rendered for plaintiff in the amount of $88,384.37.McGrath  8/3/2016 9/29/2016 2016-Ohio-7060
Humphrey v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 2015-00606Inmate; negligence; medical negligence; trial. The magistrate determined that plaintiff's claim for medical malpractice failed because he failed to present expert medical testimony establishing the standard of care, breach of standard of care, or that any alleged delays in medical treatment violated the standard of care. Finally, even if plaintiff's complaint was for ordinary negligence, there was no evidence that any non-medical staff at SOCF breached any duty of care owed to plaintiff and there was no evidence that Dr. Ahmed's orders were improperly performed. Judgment recommended in favor of defendant.Peterson  7/27/2016 8/5/2016 2016-Ohio-5261
Burnett v. Ohio Dept. of Transp. 2012-01937Plaintiff brought an action for negligence alleging that while he was operating a tractor-trailer, a metal skid shoe broke off the bottom of a snow plow truck operated by defendant's employee, and, as a result, plaintiff sustained injuries when his tractor-trailer ran over the object. Upon review of the evidence presented at trial, the magistrate found that it was more probably than not that defendant's negligence proximately caused plaintiff to suffer an injury at the L4/L5 level of his spine. As a result of that injury, plaintiff suffered significant pain in his lower back that radiated into his left leg; underwent surgery and other medical treatment for which he incurred some expenses out-of-pocket; and incurred lost wages while off work from approximately February 23, 2010 to October 16, 2010 or 34 weeks in total. However, plaintiff did not establish that a causal relationship existed between defendant's negligence and any ailments he experienced after October 16, 2010. Consequently, the magistrate calculated plaintiff's damages as follows: (1) lost wages in the amount of $35,345.04, representing 34 weeks of lost work; (2) out-of-pocket medical expenses in the amount of $2,489.97, representing medical expenses incurred by plaintiff through October 2010; (3) past pain and suffering in the amount of $35,000; and, (4) the $25 filing fee plaintiff paid to commence this action. Lastly, the magistrate offset plaintiff's recovery by the amount of the settlement in his BWC claim ($40,000) and by the amount of the short-term disability income he received in 2010 ($10,939.20), for a total reduction of $50,939.20.Van Schoyck  7/27/2016 8/24/2016 2016-Ohio-5501
Waters v. Ohio State Univ. 2015-00457Civ.R. 12(C); defamation; slander per se; false light invasion of privacy. The court determined that qualified privilege applied to the Title IX Investigation Report, the press releases cited by plaintiff, and Dr. Drake's comments as cited by plaintiff. The court also found that plaintiff was a limited-purpose public figure. Further, the court concluded that a qualified privilege applied and served as a defense to plaintiff's allegation of false light invasion of privacy. Defendant was entitled to judgment on the pleadings with regard to all of plaintiff's claims.McGrath  7/19/2016 8/5/2016 2016-Ohio-5260
Lill v. Ohio State Univ. 2015-00387Breach of contract; conversion. Plaintiff was hired by defendant in 2008 as an associated professor, a tenure track position, in defendant's Department of Pathology in the College of Medicine. Plaintiff began the tenure review process in the summer of 2011. The department chair, college dean, Provost, University President, and the Board of Trustees were all against a tenure decision for plaintiff. Plaintiff appealed the tenure denial to the Committee on Academic Freedom and Responsibility (CAFR). After consideration, the CAFR found reasonable adequate grounds indicating that plaintiff's tenure evaluation was improper and thereby referred plaintiff's appeal to the University Faculty Hearing Committee. The Committee agreed with the CAFR's findings, and reported its findings to the university's then-Provost and the University's then-President. The Provost received the Committee's findings; disagreed with them; and confirmed his original finding that plaintiff's tenure should be denied, effectively resulting in plaintiff's termination. It is the steps, or lack thereof, taken by the Provost after the Committee issued its findings and recommendations that gave rise to plaintiff's claim for breach of contract and her related conversion claim. Prior to trial, the parties stipulated that plaintiff's employment contract consisted of her offer letter and various faculty incorporated rules, and the 2006 Department of Pathology AP&T Document. Upon review, the court found that the faculty rules did not grant the Provost authority to disregard the Committee's findings and not grant a new, fair and impartial evaluation. While "new, fair and impartial" were not defined, there was no evidence that the definition of these three terms were anything different from their common meaning. As the terms were not clear and unambiguous, the court found that defendant's failure to provide her with her contractual right to a new, fair and impartial evaluation constituted a breach of plaintiff's employment contract. However, the court agreed with defendant in that because of the unusual nature of the case, damages could not be proved with reasonable certainty at that juncture. Once the promised evaluation was held, the court could then determine an appropriate damage amount. Lastly, plaintiff claimed that when her employment with defendant university ended, it failed to return to her equipment she possessed and used in her research. The court found that the property in question was either owned by the sponsor or defendant, not by the plaintiff. The only way plaintiff could have a right to possess the equipment was to have the sponsor or defendant give her permission to take control of the property, which plaintiff did not obtain. As such, the court denied plaintiff's conversion claim.Crawford  7/12/2016 8/24/2016 2016-Ohio-5502
Bentkowski v. Ohio Lottery Comm. 2014-00651Retaliation; R.C. 411.02; trial. The court determined that plaintiff did not establish that his actions during his employment at the Ohio Lottery Commission were protected activity. Even if the court construed plaintiff's actions protected activity, he failed to establish that his alleged opposition was the but-for cause of his termination, as plaintiff's own complaint and affidavit stated that the reason for his termination was the bad media coverage regarding his reporting of crimes committed against him. Judgment rendered in favor of defendant.McGrath  6/22/2016 8/3/2016 2016-Ohio-5222
Boyd v. Univ. of Toledo Med. Ctr. 2014-00186Personal immunity. Plaintiff claimed that he had a brain shunt surgically implanted in his head shortly after his birth. Throughout his life, he experienced issues related to the shunt malfunctioning, which required frequent and ongoing medical treatment. One such issue occurred in summer of 2012, when plaintiff began experiencing severe headaches. A CT was performed and plaintiff alleged that Dr. Elsamaloty, defendant's employee, inaccurately read the CT. Later, the alleged misdiagnosis resulted in plaintiff suffering hemorrhaging, seizures, cardiac and respiratory arrests, all causing permanent injuries. Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that Dr. Elsamaloty, was entitled to personal immunity, pursuant to R.C. 9.86, because he was defendant's employee and working within the course and scope of his employment at the time he rendered medical care to plaintiff. The court noted that Dr. Elsamaloty was a full-time employee of the University of Toledo College of Medicine & Life Sciences and was working within the course and scope of his employment at the time he rendered care to plaintiff. Moreover, pursuant to the holding in Ries v. Ohio State Univ. Med. Ctr., 137 Ohio St.3d 151, 2013-Ohio-4545,  23, the court noted that it did not need determine whether Dr. Elsamaloty was engaged in teaching a medical student or resident at the time that he rendered medical care to plaintiff. Rather, the court only needed to determine whether his conduct was related to and promoted the state's interests. As such, the court found that based on an affidavit provided by defendant, Dr. Elsamaloty was engaged in conduct that furthered the interests of the University of Toledo at the time that he rendered care to plaintiff. Consequently, the court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment.McGrath  6/20/2016 8/3/2016 2016-Ohio-5225
Simmons v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 2014-00860Negligence. Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody and control of defendant, brought an action for negligence alleging that a lighting fixture detached from the ceiling of his housing unit and fell on him, thereby causing injury. The issues of liability and damages were bifurcated and the case proceeded to trial on the issue of liability. Upon review of the evidence presented at trial, the magistrate determined that plaintiff did not demonstrate that defendant had actual notice that the lighting fixture would detach and fall from the ceiling. Indeed, no one who testified at trial was aware of lighting fixtures falling from the ceiling in the housing unit in question prior to the date of the accident. Plaintiff also failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant had constructive notice that the lighting fixture would detach from the ceiling and fall. There was no evidence that the fixture was improperly installed or designed. While the building may have been aging, no witnesses testified that any other fixture appeared loose or that there were other fixtures in plaintiff's dormitory that had fallen prior to the date of the accident. Though plaintiff argued that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor was applicable to the case, the magistrate found, however, that the fixture was not under the exclusive control of defendant. Instead, inmates would occasionally tamper with fixtures and the metal conduit piping to which the fixtures are attached in order to receive improved television signals. Consequently, the magistrate recommended judgment in defendant's favor.Peterson  6/20/2016 8/3/2016 2016-Ohio-5226
Howard v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 2014-00950Negligence. Plaintiff was an inmate in defendant's custody and control. Plaintiff, a diabetic, who walked with the aid of a cane and had his arm in a sling, was walking to inmate health services (IHS) to get his blood checked. On his way to IHS, plaintiff slipped and fell on an accumulation of snow and ice in the walkway. The magistrate issued a judgment in plaintiff's favor and defendant filed objections. The court overruled defendant's first objection, because other than stating multiple times in its objections that there was no evidence that plaintiff was prevented from taking an alternative route to the infirmary, defendant did not provide any evidence contrary to plaintiff's testimony that inmates could only take one path to IHS. Furthermore, no snow removal was completed prior to the time plaintiff fell, and consequently, other routes available to plaintiff were likely snow covered. The court overruled defendant's second objection because the dangerous condition, which defendant had constructive notice of, was not simply an incline or decline in a path. Rather it was a bad spot that was "swampy" during wintertime and there was an accumulation of snow on the walk plaintiff was required to use. This posed an unreasonable risk to plaintiff because he ambulated with a cane, had his arm in a sling, and the court agreed with the magistrate that walking across an ice-covered depression posed an unreasonable risk of harm to plaintiff. Lastly, the court also overruled defendant's third objection. The court reviewed plaintiff's legal status and determined that the magistrate did not err in determining that plaintiff was not a traditional "invitee" and was not always free, as an invitee would be, to refrain from traversing the accumulation of ice and snow or assume the risk of doing so. Consequently, the court adopted the magistrate's prior decision and recommendation as its own.McGrath  6/10/2016 8/3/2016 2016-Ohio-5227
Edwards v. Ohio Dept. of Transp. 2014-00553Negligence; trespass; nuisance; statute of limitations; discretionary immunity; public duty; surface water; underground water; indirect trespass. All of defendant's objections were overruled. The court determined that the magistrate was correct in determining that there was an insufficient flow of water in plaintiffs' ditch and ODOT did not adequately maintain the ditch along SR 86 in front of plaintiffs' property. The court adopted the magistrate's decision and recommendation as its own, including findings of fact and conclusions of law. Judgment on the issue of liability was rendered in favor of plaintiffs.McGrath  6/10/2016 8/3/2016 2016-Ohio-5221
Ferrell v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol 2015-01041Negligence; public duty; special relationship; Civ.R. 12(C); R.C. 2743.02. The court determined that public duty immunity applied to this case, and plaintiff failed to demonstrate that a special relationship existed between defendant and plaintiff. Specifically, the court found that plaintiff's first amended complaint disclosed no allegation that he had any contact with agents of OSHP until he was located by a trooper. Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted.McGrath  6/1/2016 8/3/2016 2016-Ohio-5223
Wantage v. Ohio Dev. Servs. Agency 2013-00616Development Services Agency (ODSA), filed objections to a previous magistrate's decision, which recommended judgment in defendant's favor. The court reviewed plaintiff's objections and found that they did not satisfy the requirements of Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(ii), which states that objections to a magistrate's decision "shall be specific and state with particularity all grounds for objection." Plaintiff also failed to support his objections with a transcript of the proceeding pursuant to Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iii), despite objecting to the magistrate's factual findings. To the extent plaintiff challenged the magistrate's legal conclusions, the court reviewed the magistrate's decision and found that the conclusions were consistent with the law. Specifically, with regard to plaintiff's wrongful termination in violation of public policy claim, the court found that the "cat's paw" theory was not applicable to the case, because plaintiff was not a decision-maker with regard to any adverse employment actions taken at the ODSA. Consequently, the court adopted the magistrate's prior decision and recommendation as its own.McGrath  6/1/2016 8/3/2016 2016-Ohio-5224
Sheppard v. Ohio Bd. of Regents 2015-01053Motion to dismiss; Civ.R. 12(B)(6); employment discrimination; R.C. 4112.02(A); defamation; negligent supervision; intentional infliction of emotional distress; sexual harassment. The court determined that plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to support an inference of discriminatory intent based on race and gender. Further, plaintiff's complaint failed to support a prima facie case of discrimination because plaintiff did not suffer an adverse employment action - she was not an employee of defendant nor did she have a pending application for employment with defendant. Plaintiff's claim of defamation was barred by the one-year statute of limitations. Defendant's motion to dismiss was granted.McGrath  5/24/2016 6/17/2016 2016-Ohio-3477
Keny v. Ohio State Univ. 2013-00711Summary judgment; Civ.R. 56(B); life insurance; employee benefit; collateral estoppel; breach of contract; negligence; economic loss doctrine. The court found that plaintiffs' claims were barred by collateral estoppel because it was necessary for the common pleas court and court of appeals to first determine that the beneficiary designation did not exist before it could conclude that Anthem did not breach its contract. Additionally, plaintiffs' negligence claims were barred by the economic loss doctrine. Summary judgment granted in favor of defendant. Crawford  5/12/2016 6/17/2016 2016-Ohio-3475
Thomas v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 2014-00731Inmate; assault; battery; negligence; excessive use of force. The magistrate determined that any force used by defendant's employees on plaintiff was privileged and not excessive. Further, there was no medical records or testimony from medical professionals to substantiate plaintiff's alleged injuries. The magistrate found that plaintiff failed to prove a claim for assault, battery, or negligence based upon his allegations of excessive force. Judgment recommended in favor of defendant.Van Schoyck  5/12/2016 6/17/2016 2016-Ohio-3476
Russell v. Cleveland State Univ. 2013-00138 & 2013-00139Age discrimination. The court found no error in the prior magistrate's decision and recommendation. Initially, the court noted that plaintiffs' objections were too long and exceeded the 15-page limitation pursuant to L.C.C.R. 4(E). Furthermore, the objections did not state with particularity all grounds pursuant to Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(ii). As a result, the court identified three separate objections and ruled on them. With regard to direct evidence of age discrimination, the court held that plaintiffs' statistical evidence was insufficient to establish discriminatory intent. Furthermore, the magistrate properly determined that one plaintiff was a member of a collective bargaining unit and under that agreement, he was not eligible for any of the new positions, and consequently, his claim of age discrimination based on direct evidence failed. With regard to the second plaintiff, the court found that he did not provide any support for the bare allegations that placing a younger employee in a newly created position was direct evidence of age discrimination. While plaintiffs alleged that defendant's agent made discriminatory statements about them, the court found that the agent was only expressing concern that plaintiffs were not keeping with current changes in how a university could best serve its students. Lastly, the court overruled any objections related to indirect evidence and defendant university's legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for reorganization because plaintiffs failed establish how the reorganization decision was not legitimate. Next, the court held that plaintiffs failed provide evidence that defendant's agent made a decision to terminate plaintiffs many weeks prior to the reorganization decision. The court also held that the magistrate properly considered evidence produced at trial when determining that defendant's proposed reasons for termination were not pretexts for age discrimination. Moreover, the court noted that the magistrate properly identified each of the new positions created as a result of the reorganization; noted that one plaintiff interviewed for an open position and was not selected; and the other had the opportunity enter a new position but chose not to. As such, any objections related to pretext were overruled. Lastly, the court found that one plaintiff, with regard to his FMLA retaliation claim, testified that he "put in for" FMLA in early May 2012, but there was no other evidence to support his testimony. The court agreed with the magistrate that the plaintiff contacted a representative to request FMLA leave on August 30, 2012, but then failed to subsequently submit a required medical certification. Furthermore, while his request for FMLA leave and official notice of termination were only five days apart, the termination of his position, based on the evidence, was contemplated for at least four months prior. Consequently, any objections with regard to plaintiff's FMLA rights were overruled. McGrath  5/10/2016 6/29/2016 2016-Ohio-4678
Louscher v. Univ. of Akron 2015-00212Defamation; intentional infliction of emotional distress; negligent supervision and retention. Plaintiff alleged that defendant university's dean of the college of engineering harassed her, obstructed her work, made false statements about her, and subjected her to humiliation, emotional distress, and mental anguish. Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that plaintiff's defamation claim was barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Defendant further asserted that plaintiff failed to state a claim for both intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent hiring and retention. Construing the evidence most strongly in plaintiff's favor, the court found that the dean made statements about plaintiff on February 12, 2012 and she did not file her claim until March 17, 2015. Consequently, any claims about the dean's statements were barred by the one-year statute of limitations. However, the court also found that defendant was not entitled to summary judgment for any statements the dean made about plaintiff after March 17, 2014. Next, the court found that reasonable minds could reach different conclusions as to whether the dean knew or should have known that his actions would result in serious emotional distress to plaintiff, and whether his conduct was extreme and outrageous. Therefore, defendant was not entitled to summary judgment on the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. Lastly, with regard to plaintiff's claim that defendant negligently hired and retained the dean, the court found that plaintiff did not bring forward facts from which a reasonable factfinder could infer that the dean was not competent. Although his actions could be found unprofessional, obstructionist, and adversarial toward plaintiff, the only reasonable conclusion was that he was competent to be a dean of the college of engineering. McGrath  5/3/2016 6/29/2016 2016-Ohio-4679
Smith v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 2013-00534Negligence. Plaintiff brought this action for negligence arising out of allegations that, while he was an inmate in the custody and control of defendant, his hand was injured by a corrections officer (CO) and he did not receive timely medical care. The issues of damages and liability were bifurcated. After reviewing the evidence presented at trial, the magistrate adduced that the CO did use force against plaintiff. Next, the magistrate noted that because video evidence did not establish the exact details of what happened, determining the facts required careful consideration and weighing of plaintiff's and the CO's testimony. In that regard, plaintiff offered a more persuasive, direct, and consistent account of what occurred than the CO, whose testimony came across as somewhat evasive or defensive at times. However, plaintiff did not present enough evidence about his claim that defendant failed to provide him with medical treatment until ten days after the incident. Consequently, the magistrate held that plaintiff proved his negligence claim by a preponderance of the evidence as to the CO's use of force, but did not establish any negligence relative to his claim of delayed or untimely medical care.Van Schoyck  4/22/2016 5/25/2016 2016-Ohio-3149
Nnazor v. Cent. State Univ. 2015-00202Breach of contract. Plaintiff asserted that defendant breached his contract of employment when it unilaterally reduced his salary. Specifically, he alleged that he was never informed that if he were no longer a dean, his salary as a tenured professor would be reduced. Defendant argued that plaintiff failed to state a claim for breach of contract. Upon review the court found that plaintiff's employment as a professor was governed by a collective bargaining agreement (CBA), the policies of which governed his salary. Plaintiff acknowledged that he knew that the CBA would govern his position as a professor when he resigned from the dean position. Consequently, plaintiff failed to identify any contractual provision that defendant breached and as a result, judgment rendered in defendant's favor.McGrath  4/20/2016 5/25/2016 2016-Ohio-3151
Patel v. Univ. of Toledo 2015-00228Breach of contract; unjust enrichment/promissory estoppel; tort claims; breach of fiduciary duty; negligent misrepresentation; fraud; negligence. Plaintiff alleged various claims arising from her enrollment in defendant's Bachelor of Science in Nursing to Doctor of nursing program (BSN-DNP). During this time, the BSN-DNP program was pending accreditation by the national accrediting organization for college nursing programs. Defendant contended that plaintiff's rights as a student in the program were contractual in nature and that the contract did not support any of her claims. The court held that plaintiff failed to prove her breach of contract claim, because she was aware that defendant's BSN-DNP program was not accredited and she did not allege that the terms of defendant's handbook, catalog, or other guideline suggested that the program had been accredited before she enrolled or that it would be accredited before she graduated. Because plaintiff's relationship with defendant was contractual and all of her tort claims arose from the same court of events, she could not sustain those claims. Moreover, the relationship between plaintiff and defendant regarding the accreditation status was purely contractual and no fiduciary relationship existed. Next, plaintiff's unjust enrichment/promissory estoppel and negligent representation claims failed because defendant's agent, even if he made promises or comments to plaintiff that the program would be accredited prior to her graduation, had no authority to do so and plaintiff could not have justifiably relied on those comments. Moreover, her fraud claim failed because she did not offer any proof of fraudulent intent on the part of defendant's agent. Lastly, her negligence claim failed because she could not demonstrate tangible harm to herself though she sought to recover economic loss. In sum, the court found that there were no genuine issues of material fact and granted defendant's motion for summary judgmentMcGrath  4/15/2016 5/25/2016 2016-Ohio-3153
12