2019 Ohio 1885
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Plaintiff Susan Lloyd (pro se) sued Cleveland Clinic Foundation, related entities, and PA Todd Richards after an August 26, 2016 clinic visit, alleging defamation, disability discrimination, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED).
- At the visit Lloyd complained of "foam in her urine," brought two service dogs in a stroller, reported threats from a neighbor on Facebook, and was examined by Richards who ordered a urinalysis and recommended follow-up care; Richards suggested the ED for safety resources and arranged for Lloyd to stay with a friend instead.
- Lloyd alleged certain statements in Richards’ Progress Note (part of her medical record) and other employees’ social media/posts were defamatory and discriminatory and caused emotional distress.
- Lloyd filed multiple pretrial motions (to compel, for sanctions, to disqualify defense counsel) and two motions to amend to add RN Deborah Stack as a defendant; the court denied the disqualification and the amendment motions, and granted limited discovery relief.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment; the trial court granted it, concluding no genuine issues of material fact existed on defamation, IIED, and disability-discrimination claims. Lloyd appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was improper on defamation claim | Lloyd: Progress Note statements and alleged social-media posts were false, published, and defamatory | Defendants: Progress Note is confidential medical record not published outside CCF; no evidence of falsity or third-party publication | Court: Affirmed summary judgment — no publication to third parties and no proof of falsity or malice |
| Whether summary judgment was improper on IIED claim | Lloyd: Defendants/ employees intentionally caused severe emotional distress via defamatory/social-media conduct | Defendants: No extreme/outrageous conduct, no intent, no severe debilitating distress | Court: Affirmed — conduct not extreme/outrageous and no evidence of severe emotional distress |
| Whether summary judgment was improper on disability-discrimination claim | Lloyd: She received inferior care because she has service dogs; specific Progress Note language showed discrimination | Defendants: Statements do not show denial of equal access or different services; no evidence of substandard medical care or expert support | Court: Affirmed — no evidence she was denied equal services or received inadequate care |
| Whether trial court abused discretion on pretrial motions (sanctions, amend complaint, compel discovery) | Lloyd: Court erred denying sanctions and amendment; improperly limited discovery | Defendants: Motions procedurally deficient or unsupported; discovery order was appropriate | Held: Affirmed — sanctions argument waived/unsupported; amendment properly denied for lack of particularity; discovery order not abused |
Key Cases Cited
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (de novo standard for appellate review of summary judgment)
- Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, 82 Ohio St.3d 367 (summary judgment/Civ.R.56 standards)
- Phung v. Waste Mgt., Inc., 71 Ohio St.3d 408 (elements for IIED)
- Yeager v. Local Union 20, 6 Ohio St.3d 369 (extreme and outrageous conduct standard for IIED)
- Hahn v. Kotten, 43 Ohio St.2d 237 (elements of actionable publication and qualified privilege in defamation)
- Kanjuka v. MetroHealth Med. Ctr., 151 Ohio App.3d 183 (definition/elements of defamation)