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/treat a MRSA infection.
- Court-ordered discovery deadlines required Hernandez to provide names and reports of any expert witnesses to ODRC by July 25, 2016; no discovery after Sept. 21, 2016 without leave.
- Hernandez sought his medical records under R.C. 5120.21(C) and filed a motion to compel and a motion to extend discovery after the expert-disclosure deadline.
- ODRC moved for summary judgment arguing Hernandez lacked expert proof of the applicable standard of care, breach, and proximate cause and that his requests for admissions were deemed admitted when not answered.
- The Court of Claims denied the motion to compel (procedural noncompliance with R.C. 5120.21(C) and Civ.R. 37(E)) and granted summary judgment to ODRC because Hernandez had not produced expert reports by the court deadline nor sought a Civ.R. 56(F) continuance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2. Constitutionality of R.C. 5120.21(C)(2) (access to medical records) | Statute denies indigent pro se prisoners access to evidence and courts, violating First and Fourteenth Amendments | Argument not raised below; Court of Claims lacks jurisdiction over constitutional claims in this context | Overruled — argument not preserved and Court of Claims lacks jurisdiction on constitutional claims |
| 1. Denial of motion to compel medical records | Hernandez claimed he attempted to obtain records and discovery was necessary | ODRC: Hernandez failed to follow R.C. 5120.21(C) procedure; motion lacked required meet-and-confer statement under Civ.R. 37(E) | Denial affirmed — independent, proper grounds (statutory procedure not followed) |
| 3. Failure to disclose experts by court deadline | Hernandez filed a partial list and extension after the July 25 deadline, contending needed records were withheld | ODRC: disclosures were untimely; requests for admissions (unanswered) showed no expert report was produced by deadline | Affirmed — disclosures were late; court correctly treated deadline as missed |
| 4. Grant of summary judgment | Hernandez argued discovery was incomplete and records in ODRC control, so summary judgment was premature | ODRC: no expert proof of standard, breach, causation; Hernandez did not move for Civ.R. 56(F) continuance; admissions deemed admitted | Affirmed — without expert testimony plaintiff cannot prove malpractice and he failed to seek Civ.R. 56(F) relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Bruni v. Tatsumi, 46 Ohio St.2d 127 (1976) (medical malpractice requires expert proof of standard of care)
- Hudson v. Petrosurance, Inc., 127 Ohio St.3d 54 (2010) (summary judgment standard and appellate de novo review)
- Sinnott v. Aqua-Chem, Inc., 116 Ohio St.3d 158 (2007) (summary judgment elements clarified)
- Zurz v. 770 W. Broad AGA, LLC, 192 Ohio App.3d 521 (2011) (appellate de novo review of summary-judgment rulings)