Skorvanek v. Dept. of Rehab & Corr.
2018 Ohio 3870
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Inmate John M. Skorvanek sued the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Correction (ODRC) after fellow inmate Scott Creech poured boiling water on him and struck him with a cane in the Pickaway Correctional Institution medical unit on November 12, 2013.
- Skorvanek alleged ODRC negligently failed to supervise/control Creech and failed to protect him; liability and damages were bifurcated and the magistrate heard liability only.
- Witnesses testified Creech had become despondent before the incident and had made threats to other inmates, but those inmates did not report credible or specific threats to staff; staff (nurses and a corrections officer) were present and subdued Creech within roughly 30 seconds.
- ODRC produced nonprivileged portions of Creech’s mental-health file but withheld treatment/diagnosis materials under the physician-patient privilege; the magistrate and trial court reviewed the sealed records in camera and ordered them protected.
- The magistrate found Skorvanek failed to prove ODRC had actual or constructive notice of an impending attack and therefore failed to show breach of duty; the Court of Claims adopted the magistrate’s decision and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Creech’s mental-health records must be produced | Skorvanek: records relevant to foreseeability and should be discoverable despite privilege | ODRC: records are privileged under R.C. 2317.02 and no statutory exception applies | Court: records are privileged; in camera review proper and disclosure to plaintiff not required |
| Whether Creech’s disciplinary/prison record and prior behavior gave ODRC constructive notice of attack | Skorvanek: prior assaults, misconduct, and bizarre behavior put ODRC on constructive notice | ODRC: record showed only remote, infrequent violence and low security classification — no pattern indicating imminent danger | Court: no actual or constructive notice; disciplinary history and odd behavior insufficient to show foreseeability |
| Whether allocation of staff/security in medical bay was negligent | Skorvanek: single officer covering 160 inmates and bay layout created inadequate protection | ODRC: staffing and allocation are discretionary, planning-level decisions entitled to immunity; staff responded quickly | Court: allocation decisions fall under discretionary immunity; response was swift — no breach |
| Whether Creech’s cane lacked medical authorization and whether counsel should have inspected sealed records | Skorvanek: lack of authorization would be evidence of negligence and counsel should inspect records | ODRC: testimony establishes medical authorization; in camera review by judge protected confidentiality and counsel access not required | Court: nurse testimony credible that authorization existed; counsel not entitled to inspect privileged records; in camera review sufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Menifee v. Ohio Welding Prods., 15 Ohio St.3d 75 (1984) (elements of negligence: duty, breach, proximate cause)
- Strother v. Hutchinson, 67 Ohio St.2d 282 (1981) (plaintiff bears burden to prove negligence elements)
- Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979) (prison administrators afforded deference in security/administration decisions)
- Roe v. Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region, 122 Ohio St.3d 399 (2009) (physician-patient privilege protects nonparty medical records from discovery; exceptions are statutory)
- Ward v. Summa Health Sys., 128 Ohio St.3d 212 (2010) (distinguishes discoverability of a party’s own medical info from privileged nonparty records)
- Biddle v. Warren Gen. Hosp., 86 Ohio St.3d 395 (1999) (confidentiality may yield to countervailing public interest, but Roe limits that as a discovery rule)
- In re Wieland, 89 Ohio St.3d 535 (2000) (purpose of physician-patient privilege: encourage candid communications for treatment)
- C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr. Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279 (1978) (judgment supported by some competent, credible evidence will not be reversed)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (2012) (standards for weighing manifest weight of the evidence)