Moore v. Trumbull Mem. Hosp.
2016 Ohio 1366
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Shannon Moore, an STNA at Trumbull Memorial Hospital (TMH), was drug-tested twice after missing Percocet at work; tests were attributable to prescribed medications.
- TMH required verification of prescriptions; inability to reach Moore contributed to workplace discussions; Moore alleges a supervisor disclosed the positive screen within earshot of others and her child.
- Moore was involved in an HR dispute over missing vacation pay, became loud and discourteous to staff, and was terminated on May 16, 2013 for multiple performance and conduct issues.
- Moore sued for racial discrimination and, in an amended complaint, invasion of privacy/breach of confidentiality regarding disclosure of her health information.
- TMH moved for summary judgment on December 31, 2014; Moore moved to compel discovery (filed January 22, 2015) after TMH had not responded to discovery requests served September 19, 2014.
- The trial court granted TMH summary judgment without ruling on Moore’s motion to compel; the appellate court reversed and remanded, finding the court abused its discretion by resolving summary judgment before discovery disputes were decided.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by ruling on summary judgment before discovery was resolved | Moore argued TMH failed to respond to discovery, she timely filed a motion to compel, and the court should have delayed summary judgment to allow discovery | TMH proceeded on merits; argued Moore did not follow Civ.R. 56(F) procedural requirements for a continuance and did not show specific facts discovery would produce | Reversed: trial court abused its discretion by granting summary judgment without resolving Moore’s motion to compel; discovery should have been addressed first |
| Whether Moore’s invasion of privacy / breach of confidentiality claim was correctly dismissed on summary judgment | Moore contended TMH wrongfully disclosed her private health information (positive drug screen attributable to prescriptions) | TMH argued no actionable privacy breach or that undisputed facts supported judgment | Not reached on merits — rendered moot by reversal on discovery grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Loopco Industries, 66 Ohio St.3d 64 (Ohio 1993) (summary judgment is a drastic procedural device and should be used cautiously)
- Dupler v. Mansfield Journal Co., 64 Ohio St.2d 116 (Ohio 1980) (trial court may not weigh evidence or choose among reasonable inferences on summary judgment)
- Murphy v. Reynoldsburg, 65 Ohio St.3d 356 (Ohio 1992) (doubts must be resolved in favor of the nonmoving party on summary judgment)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (standard for whether reasonable minds could differ under summary judgment)
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (Ohio 1996) (appellate review of summary judgment is de novo)
- Tucker v. Webb Corp., 4 Ohio St.3d 121 (Ohio 1983) (Civ.R. 56(F) protections may be applied even when not strictly invoked if discovery was insufficient to oppose summary judgment)