Skorvanek v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
2017 Ohio 2694
Ohio Ct. Cl.2017Background
- Plaintiff John Skorvanek sued the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC) after inmate Scott Creech attacked him in a prison medical dorm on Nov. 12, 2013, pouring boiling water on his face and striking him with a cane; Skorvanek alleged burns, scarring, hearing loss, and other injuries.
- Skorvanek alleged ODRC negligence for failing to supervise and for placing a violent/mentally impaired inmate among disabled inmates; he sought damages exceeding $25,000.
- The magistrate conducted in camera review of Creech’s sealed mental-health records after the parties agreed; most records were ruled privileged and withheld, with a few produced.
- A bench trial on liability occurred; the magistrate found Skorvanek failed to prove ODRC had actual or constructive notice of an impending assault and recommended judgment for ODRC.
- Skorvanek filed nine objections to the magistrate’s decision (timely under extensions); the court performed an independent review and overruled all objections, adopting the magistrate’s decision and entering judgment for ODRC.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff was entitled to nonparty inmate Creech’s full mental-health records or participation in the in camera review | Skorvanek: privileged records (beyond treatment) and right to participate in review; Frash supports broader discovery | ODRC: records largely privileged; in camera review by court appropriate and parties need not participate | Court: no right to party participation in in camera review; records may be withheld if privileged; overruled plaintiff’s discovery claims |
| Whether Creech’s possession of a metal cane without restriction showed negligence | Skorvanek: cane without proper restriction proves ODRC breach | ODRC: medical authorization existed for cane; no evidence staff knew cane would be used as weapon | Court: magistrate considered cane and testimony showed doctor’s order existed; plaintiff failed to show breach or notice |
| Whether Creech’s disciplinary history gave ODRC constructive notice of impending attack | Skorvanek: past assaults/misconduct/bizarre behavior put ODRC on notice | ODRC: disciplinary incidents were remote, largely nonviolent, and classification reviews showed low security risk | Court: magistrate reasonably found history insufficient to give actual or constructive notice; objection overruled |
| Whether staffing/allocation of security in the medical bay made ODRC liable | Skorvanek: understaffing and officer responsibilities created inability to prevent assaults | ODRC: allocation decisions are discretionary prison-administration functions; staff and cameras were present | Court: allocation falls within discretionary-execution area; evidence supported finding no notice and reasonable staffing; objection overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- Mitchell v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 107 Ohio App.3d 231 (10th Dist. 1995) (state not liable for inmate-on-inmate assault absent adequate notice)
- Baker v. State, Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 28 Ohio App.3d 99 (10th Dist. 1986) (same principle as to ODRC liability for assaults)
- Biddle v. Warren Gen. Hosp., 86 Ohio St.3d 395 (1999) (discusses defenses to tort of unauthorized disclosure of medical information)
- Roe v. Planned Parenthood Sw. Ohio Region, 122 Ohio St.3d 399 (2009) (Biddle does not create a litigant’s right to discover nonparty confidential medical records)
- Ward v. Summa Health Sys., 128 Ohio St.3d 212 (2010) (physician-patient privilege exceptions in specific factual contexts)
- Leopold v. Ace Doran Hauling & Rigging Co., 136 Ohio St.3d 257 (2013) (scope of physician-patient privilege when medical records previously disclosed)
- McFadden v. Elmer C. Breuer Transp. Co., 156 Ohio St. 430 (1952) (party asserting an issue bears the burden of proof)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (standard for weighing manifest weight of the evidence)