Hernandez v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
2017 Ohio 8646
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff William Hernandez, an inmate at Grafton Correctional Institution, sued the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC) for medical negligence, alleging failure to detect and treat a MRSA infection.
- The Court of Claims set a discovery deadline requiring Hernandez to provide names and reports of any expert witnesses by July 25, 2016, and limited discovery after September 21, 2016.
- Hernandez filed motions to compel and to extend discovery on August 15, 2016, and submitted a partial list of experts after the court deadline.
- ODRC moved for summary judgment, asserting Hernandez had no expert evidence on standard of care, breach, or proximate cause and served requests for admission to that effect.
- The trial court denied Hernandez’s motion to compel (procedural noncompliance with R.C. 5120.21(C) and Civ.R. 37) and granted summary judgment to ODRC because Hernandez failed to produce expert testimony or timely expert reports; Hernandez did not seek a Civ.R. 56(F) continuance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of R.C. 5120.21(C)(2) restricting inmate access to medical records | Statute denies indigent pro se inmates access to necessary evidence and violates First and Fourteenth Amendments | Issue not raised below; Court of Claims lacks jurisdiction over constitutional claims in this context | Overruled — argument not preserved and court lacks jurisdiction to decide constitutional claim |
| Denial of motion to compel (failure to recite efforts to resolve discovery and statutory compliance) | Hernandez contends he did attempt to obtain records and resolve discovery | Trial court found statutory request form was deficient and Civ.R. 37 requirement unmet | Moot — independent statutory ground (noncompliance with R.C. 5120.21(C)) justified denial |
| Failure to provide expert list/reports by court deadline | Hernandez argues late filings and withheld discovery from ODRC prevented compliance | ODRC points to missed July 25 deadline; Hernandez’s August filings were untimely | Overruled — Hernandez missed the court-ordered deadline |
| Grant of summary judgment for lack of medical expert proof | Hernandez claims incomplete discovery and that ODRC controlled needed records | ODRC showed requests for admission and absence of expert reports; no Civ.R. 56(F) continuance sought | Affirmed — without expert testimony on standard/breach/causation, malpractice claim fails; Hernandez did not move for Civ.R. 56(F) relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Hudson v. Petrosurance, Inc., 127 Ohio St.3d 54 (2010) (standards for granting summary judgment)
- Sinnott v. Aqua-Chem, Inc., 116 Ohio St.3d 158 (2007) (summary judgment standard clarified)
- Bruni v. Tatsumi, 46 Ohio St.2d 127 (1976) (medical malpractice requires expert proof of standard of care)
- Zurz v. 770 W. Broad AGA, LLC, 192 Ohio App.3d 521 (2011) (appellate de novo review of summary judgment)
- White v. Westfall, 183 Ohio App.3d 807 (2009) (appellate review and summary judgment principles)