Mayor v. Regina Health Ctr. , 2024 Ohio 4475 ( 2024 )

[Cite as Mayor v. Regina Health Ctr., 2024-Ohio-4475.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
)ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF SUMMIT )
WILLIAM MAYOR C.A. No. 30354
Appellee
v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
ENTERED IN THE
REGINA HEALTH CENTER COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO
Appellant CASE No. CV 2020-08-2212
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
Dated: September 11, 2024
STEVENSON, Presiding Judge.
{¶1} Defendant-Appellant Regina Health Center (“Regina”) appeals from the judgment
of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas which granted, in part, Plaintiff-Appellee William
Mayor’s (“Mayor”) motion to compel discovery. Because Regina has not demonstrated that the
trial court ordered the production of personal and confidential medical records, we affirm the trial
court’s judgment.
I.
{¶2} In August 2020, Mayor filed a complaint against Regina alleging: (1) age
discrimination in violation of R.C. 4112.14 and R.C. 4112.99; (2) disability discrimination in
violation of R.C. 4112.01, et seq.; and (3) violation of Ohio Public Policy. Mayor was employed
by Regina as a licensed State Tested Nurse’s Aide (“STNA”) from 1994 until his resignation on
February 5, 2019. Mayor’s complaint also alleged that on or about the same day, Regina terminated
2
Mayor from his employment for failure to comply with Regina’s standards of care and failure to
follow the conduct and work rules outlined in its employee handbook.
{¶3} The parties engaged in discovery. Mayor propounded Interrogatories and a
Request for Production of Documents upon Regina. The discovery requests relevant to this appeal
are Interrogatory No. 21 and Document No. 26.
{¶4} Interrogatory No. 21 asked Regina to “[i]dentify the name, address and telephone
number of the resident referenced in paragraphs 43-46[]” of the complaint. Paragraphs 43-46
include a reference to the resident’s alleged toileting issues and a claim that “[Mayor ]was told that
the resident no longer wanted [Mayor] to care for her.” Regina alleges that paragraphs 43-46 also
refer to the resident’s diminished mental capacity. However, our review of the complaint revealed
that the reference to “diminished mental capacity” is in paragraph 47 and is not the subject of
Interrogatory No. 21. Regina objected to Interrogatory No. 21 on the grounds that it sought
information that was privileged and protected by the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) (federal law restricting access to private medical information),
R.C. 2317.02 (Ohio statute recognizing physician-patient privilege), and R.C. 3721.13 (Ohio’s
Nursing Home Patient Bill of Rights).
{¶5} Mayor’s Document Request No. 26 asked that Regina produce “[a]ny and all
documentation identifying and containing the contact information for the residents and guests that
were witnesses, parties to, or the subjects of the incidents, events and disciplinary actions described
in the Complaint.” Regina objected on the grounds that it sought private information that is
privileged and protected by HIPAA, R.C. 2317.02, and R.C. 3721.13.
{¶6} Mayor moved to compel Regina to respond. Regina filed a brief in opposition. Only
Part C of Regina’s brief in opposition addressed Interrogatory No. 21 and Document Request No.
3
26. Regina’s arguments in Part C were limited to an analysis under R.C.2317.02, R.C.
3721.13(A)(10), and certain cases construing these statutes.
{¶7} The trial court issued an order granting in part, and denying in part, Mayor’s motion
to compel. As relevant to this appeal, the trial court ordered as follows:
The court does not find that the identities and contact information of other patients
in [Regina’s] facility is protected from disclosure under R.C. 3721.13(A)(10). See
May v. N. Health Facilities Inc., 11 Dist. Portage No. 2008-P-0054, 2009-Ohio-
1442. [Regina] shall provide responses to Interrogatory No. 21 and Document
Request Nos. 9 and 26[.]
{¶8} Regina timely appealed and asserts two assignments of error for our review.
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ITS MAY 31, 2022 “ORDER’
COMPELLING DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, REGINA HEALTH
CENTER, TO PRODUCE INFORMATION CONCERNING THE
IDENTITIES AND CONTACT INFORMATION OF THE PATIENTS IN
[REGINA’S] NURSING HOME FACILITY BECAUSE THIS
INFORMATION IS PRIVILEGED AND PROTECTED FROM
DISCLOSURE UNDER OHIO STATUTORY LAW AS SET FORTH IN R.C.
2317.02 AND R.C. 3721.13(A)(10) AND (11); PRIVILEGED UNDER
FEDERAL LAW AS SET FORTH IN THE HEALTH INSURANCE
PORTABILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 1996 (“HIPAA”) PUB.
L. 104-191, 110 STAT. 1936, AND THE CORRESPONDING “PRIVACY
RULES” FOUND IN THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS AS SET
FORTH IN 45 C.F. R. SUBTITLE A, SUBCHAPTER C, PART 164,
SUBPART E, 164.500 ET SEQ.; AND PRIVILEGED TO THE EXTENT
HIPAA IS INCORPORATED INTO OHIO LAW BY R.C. 3798.01 ET SEQ.,
AND IS CONFIDENTIAL AND PROTECTED FROM DISCLOSURE
UNDER OHIO COMMON LAW.
{¶9} Regina challenges the court-ordered disclosure of the identity and contact
information of the resident referred to in paragraphs 43-46 of the complaint (Interrogatory No. 21)
and the production of all documentation identifying and containing the contact information for the
residents who were “witnesses, parties to, or the subjects of the incidents, events and disciplinary
4
actions described in the Complaint.” (Document No. 26). The trial court resolved the motion to
compel with respect to these documents under R.C. 3721.13(A)(10). Accordingly, this Court’s
discussion is limited to that statute as well.
{¶10} “Ordinarily, a discovery dispute is reviewed under an abuse-of-discretion standard.
However, if the discovery issue involves an alleged privilege…it is a question of law that must be
reviewed de novo.” (Citations omitted.) Ward v. Summa Health Sys., 2010-Ohio-6275, ¶ 13.
Furthermore, cases such as this one involving the interpretation of a statute are a matter of law that
an appellate court also reviews under a de novo standard. Akron Centre Plaza, L.L.C v. Summit
Cty. Bd. of Revision, 2010-Ohio-5035, ¶ 10. Therefore, our review of this matter is de novo.
{¶11} Ohio’s Nursing Home Patient Bill of Rights is codified in R.C. 3721.13 and protects
the disclosure of personal and medical records of nursing home residents without first being
approved by the resident. R.C. 3721.13 provides in relevant part:
(A) The rights of residents of a home shall include, but are not limited to, the following:
…
(10) The right to confidential treatment of personal and medical records, and the
right to approve or refuse the release of these records to any individual outside the
home, except in case of transfer to another home, hospital, or health care system,
as required by law or rule, or as required by a third-party payment contract[.]
…
{¶12} In May, 2009-Ohio-1442 (11th Dist.), which the trial court cited in its order, the
plaintiff was the personal representative of the estate of the decedent, a former resident of
defendant nursing home. Plaintiff alleged that the nursing home provided substandard care to the
decedent that resulted in serious injury and death. Id. at ¶ 2. During discovery, after the nursing
home refused to provide plaintiff with the names and last known address of the decedent’s
5
roommates, plaintiff filed a motion to compel which the trial court granted. Id. On appeal, the
Eleventh District concluded that:
The names of [the appellant’s] roommates were not confidential medical
information under [R.C. 2317.02] insomuch as the names and addresses did not
concern any facts, opinions, or statements necessary to enable a physician to
diagnose, treat, prescribe, or act for a patient. Therefore, the names and addresses
of [the appellant’s] roommates were not privileged information under R.C.
2317.02.
Id. at ¶ 18. The May court also rejected the nursing home’s claims that the information was
protected under R.C. 3721.13(A)(10), concluding:
We do not construe this right to include the denial of access to the names and
addresses of potential material witnesses in a lawsuit. If [the nursing home]
provides the names and addresses of residents after receipt of a valid subpoena or
court order, [it] would not be guilty of violating [R.C. 3721.13(A)(10)].
Id at ¶ 19.
{¶13} Regina’s arguments on appeal are limited. Specifically, Regina makes no argument
as to Document Request No. 9 that was also included in the trial court’s order. Regina claims that
Interrogatory No. 21 seeks disclosure of privileged medical information because it references the
resident described in paragraphs 43-46 of the complaint as having “toileting” issues. Regina claims
that Document No. 26 necessarily reveals that those residents are receiving nursing care. With
respect to the aspects of the motion to compel that Regina has challenged, we agree with the
holding in May. The information sought in Interrogatory No. 21 and Document Request No. 26
does not consist of “personal or medical records” that must be confidential under R.C.
3721.13(A)(10). Specifically, the requested information does not “concern[] any facts, opinions,
or statements necessary to enable a physician to diagnose, treat, prescribe, or otherwise act for a
patient[,]” R.C. 2317.02(B)(5)(a), nor would it reveal individual medical conditions or health
information. The only information requested was names, addresses, and contact information.
6
While Mayor’s complaint characterized the resident in Interrogatory No. 21 as “required toileting,”
the interrogatory itself only asked for identifying information of this resident and did not reference
“toileting” or a diagnosis or any treatment that resulted from a physician-patient communication
or health record as contemplated in R.C. 3721.13(A)(10). Instead, the “required toileting”
reference was Mayor’s description of that resident in the complaint.
{¶14} Accordingly, based on the foregoing, we conclude that the trial court did not err by
concluding that the identities and contact information of the other patients in Regina’s facilities
are protected from disclosure under R.C. 3721.13(A)(10) and compelling Regina to respond to
Interrogatory No. 21 and Document Request No. 26 on that basis. Regina’s first assignment of
error is overruled.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ITS MAY 31, 2022 “ORDER’
COMPELLING DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, REGINA HEALTH
CENTER, TO PRODUCE INFORMATION CONCERNING THE
IDENTITIES AND CONTACT INFORMATION OF THE PATIENTS IN
[REGINA’S] NURSING HOME FACILITY BECAUSE THIS
INFORMATION IS SUBJECT TO THEIR RIGHT OF PRIVACY UNDER
OHIO NURSING HOME RESIDENTS’ BILL OF RIGHTS, R.C.
3721.13(A)(11), AND OHIO COMMON LAW.
{¶15} Here, Regina argues that the trial court’s order requiring disclosure of the identities
and contact information of patients at Regina violates their privacy rights under R.C.
3721.13(A)(11) and Ohio common law. R.C. 3721.13(A)(11) provides that the “rights of residents
of a home shall include, but are not limited to,… the right to privacy during medical examination
or treatment and in the care of personal or bodily needs[.]” Regina did not make these arguments
in the trial court, however, and this Court declines to address them in the first instance. See Haven
v. Lodi, 2022-Ohio-3957, ¶ 24 (9th Dist.).
7
III.
{¶16} Based on the foregoing, Regina’s assignments of error are overruled, and the
judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common
Pleas, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy
of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of
judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period
for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to
mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the mailing in the
docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.
Costs taxed to Appellant.
SCOT STEVENSON
FOR THE COURT
HENSAL, J.
SUTTON, J.
CONCUR.
8
APPEARANCES:
BETH A. SEBAUGH and JONATHAN A. GOOD, Attorneys at Law, for Appellant.
NATALIE GRUBB and MARK E. OWENS, Attorneys at Law, for Appellee.