Csonka-Cherney v. ArcelorMittal Cleveland, Inc.
9 N.E.3d 515
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Csonka-Cherney, plaintiff, alleged gender discrimination, sexual harassment, and constructive discharge, seeking damages including emotional distress.
- Defendants sought discovery of plaintiff’s medical and psychological records claiming her emotional injuries put those records at issue.
- Plaintiff resisted, arguing the records were privileged, confidential, and overly broad to the case, and requested an in camera review.
- Trial court granted motion to compel subject to a protective order, without an in camera review of the records.
- Court relied on a broad discovery standard, noting physician-patient and psychologist-client privileges and waivers where appropriate.
- This interlocutory appeal challenges the trial court’s handling of privilege and discovery of medical records, and requests an in camera inspection prior to production.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in granting discovery of medical records. | Cherney argues records are privileged and not causally/historically related. | Defendants contend emotional claim places records at issue and are discoverable. | Yes, error; trial court must conduct in camera review first. |
| Whether the court should have conducted an in camera inspection before ordering production. | Cherney sought in camera review to determine relevance. | Defendants contend broad discovery permitted; no in camera necessary. | Yes, error; mandate in camera inspection on remand to determine relevance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Groening v. Pitney Bowes, Inc., 2009-Ohio-357 (8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 91394, 2009-Ohio-357) (injury records require in camera review to assess relevance)
- Pinnix v. Glassman, Inc., 2012-Ohio-3263 (8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 97998 and 97999, 2012-Ohio-3263) (privilege/discovery with protection; in camera review preferred)
- Huntington Natl. Bank v. Dixon, 2010-Ohio-4668 (8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 93604, 2010-Ohio-4668) (privilege log and waiver considerations; not per se waived)
- Wargo v. Buck, 123 Ohio App.3d 110 (7th Dist. 1997) (physician-patient privilege rationale and scope)
- Folmar v. Griffin, 2006-Ohio-1849 (5th Dist.) (records must be related causally/historically to relevant injuries)
- R.C. 2317.02(B)(3)(a), statutory provision cited () (relevance and waiver framework for physician-patient privilege)