2023 Ohio 3856
Ohio Ct. App.2023Background
- Relator Amirah Sultaana filed an original mandamus action seeking (1) Medcare Ambulance’s compliance with her R.C. 149.43 public‑records request and (2) correction of patient records for her son, Hakeem Sultaana (July 2, 2022 run-sheet).
- Medcare moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6); the magistrate recommended granting the motion and denying the writ.
- The magistrate found the complaint did not plead facts showing Medcare is a “public office” or the functional equivalent required by State ex rel. Oriana House for application of the Public Records Act.
- The magistrate also concluded the Public Records Act provides a right to inspect and copy records but does not impose a duty to correct records; thus the correction claim failed as a matter of law.
- The court considered (and declined to resolve) assertions that Sultaana was engaged in the unauthorized practice of law on behalf of her son, deeming dismissal on that ground premature.
- The Tenth District overruled Sultaana’s objections, adopted the magistrate’s decision, granted the motion to dismiss, and dismissed the action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of Public Records Act — is Medcare a public office or functional equivalent? | Sultaana asserted Medcare is subject to R.C. 149.43 and must produce records. | Medcare argued it is a private entity and the complaint failed to plead facts showing it is a public office or functional equivalent. | Held: Complaint failed to allege facts supporting that Medcare is a public office or functional equivalent under Oriana House; dismissal warranted. |
| Pleading sufficiency for public‑records mandamus | Sultaana relied on notice pleading and cited the Public Records Act. | Medcare argued relator failed to plead the legal duty or facts establishing applicability of the Act. | Held: Under Civ.R. 8/12(B)(6), relator must plead sufficient underlying facts; mere citation of the Act and conclusory assertions were insufficient. |
| Whether filing supporting affidavits were required to oppose 12(B)(6) motion | Sultaana contended Medcare should have attached an affidavit negating applicability of R.C. 149.43. | Medcare relied on the complaint; a movant cannot introduce outside evidence without converting to summary judgment. | Held: Medcare was not required to attach an affidavit to a 12(B)(6) motion; inclusion of outside evidence would convert the motion to summary judgment. |
| Remedy sought — does R.C. 149.43 authorize correction of records? | Sultaana sought an order compelling correction of her son’s patient records. | Medcare argued the Public Records Act only requires inspection/production, not correction. | Held: R.C. 149.43 provides a right to inspect and copy records but does not create a duty to correct records; the correction claim fails as a matter of law. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Oriana House, Inc. v. Montgomery, 110 Ohio St.3d 456 (2006) (private entities are subject to the Public Records Act only if clear and convincing evidence shows they are the functional equivalent of a public office; multi‑factor test)
- State ex rel. Physicians Comm. for Responsible Medicine v. Bd. of Trustees of Ohio State Univ., 108 Ohio St.3d 288 (2006) (mandamus is appropriate to compel compliance with Public Records Act)
- State ex rel. Toledo Blade Co. v. Ohio Bur. of Workers’ Comp., 106 Ohio St.3d 113 (2005) (discusses public‑records access and entities created to receive public funds)
- State ex rel. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Commrs. v. Ohio Envtl. Prot. Agency, 88 Ohio St.3d 166 (2000) (Public Records Act presumes access unless a specific exception applies)
- State ex rel. ACLU of Ohio v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 128 Ohio St.3d 256 (2011) (public‑records mandamus does not require proving lack of an adequate remedy at law)
- State ex rel. Hanson v. Guernsey Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 65 Ohio St.3d 545 (1992) (motion to dismiss tests sufficiency of the complaint and generally cannot rely on matters outside the complaint)
- State ex rel. Welsh‑Huggins v. Jefferson Cty. Prosecutor’s Office, 163 Ohio St.3d 337 (2020) (in public‑records mandamus the requester must plead and prove a request under R.C. 149.43(B)(1) and that the records were not made available)