Erickson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
2017 Ohio 1572
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Erickson, an ODRC inmate, alleged he developed a seizure disorder after a February 2008 dental procedure and was prescribed anti‑seizure medication; he suffered a grand mal seizure on June 15, 2008 after a June 13, 2008 transfer to Marion Correctional Institution and missing doses.
- He sued ODRC (and OSUMC), asserting negligence; claims against OSUMC were dismissed as time‑barred under the one‑year medical‑claims statute, while ODRC remained subject to a two‑year negligence statute.
- The Court of Claims set expert disclosure and discovery deadlines; Erickson missed his expert disclosure deadline and did not timely comply with discovery orders compelling production of records.
- ODRC timely disclosed two experts (neurology and pharmacology) whose reports concluded causation was not established and that multiple preexisting factors could explain seizures; ODRC moved for summary judgment on statute‑of‑limitations and, principally, lack of causation.
- Erickson filed a late expert report and later authenticated it, but the Court of Claims declined to consider it as untimely, unauthenticated at the summary‑judgment stage, and not demonstrating probable causation; the court granted summary judgment to ODRC.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court abused discretion by excluding Erickson's late expert report | Erickson argued his expert rebutted ODRC's experts and created a triable issue | ODRC argued the report was untimely, Erickson failed discovery, and the report was unauthenticated under Civ.R. 56 | Court held exclusion was proper: late filing, failure to show excusable neglect, discovery failures, and lack of Civ.R. 56 authentication justified exclusion |
| Whether summary judgment was proper because Erickson cannot prove causation | Erickson contended his expert showed causation from missed medication | ODRC argued its experts showed multiple other causes and that Erickson offered no admissible evidence to show probable causation | Court held ODRC met its initial burden and Erickson failed to produce specific, admissible facts raising a genuine issue on causation; summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Helton v. Scioto Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 123 Ohio App.3d 158 (summ. judg. de novo standard for appeals of summary judgment)
- Drescher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (burden shifting and nonmoving party must present specific facts in response to summary judgment)
- Menifee v. Ohio Welding Prods., Inc., 15 Ohio St.3d 75 (causation is essential element of negligence recovery)
- Cromer v. Children's Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Akron, 142 Ohio St.3d 257 (discussing causation and proof standards in tort claims)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (abuse of discretion standard for reviewing trial court decisions)