Johnson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. ( 2009 )


Menu:
  • [Cite as Johnson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 
    2009-Ohio-7060
    .]
    Court of Claims of Ohio
    The Ohio Judicial Center
    65 South Front Street, Third Floor
    Columbus, OH 43215
    614.387.9800 or 1.800.824.8263
    www.cco.state.oh.us
    SYLVESTER JOHNSON
    Plaintiff
    v.
    OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION
    Defendant
    Case No. 2004-11040
    Judge J. Craig Wright
    Magistrate Anderson M. Renick
    JUDGMENT ENTRY
    {¶ 1} On September 23, 2009, the magistrate issued a decision recommending
    judgment for defendant.
    {¶ 2} Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(i) states, in part: “A party may file written objections to a
    magistrate’s decision within fourteen days of the filing of the decision, whether or not the
    court has adopted the decision during that fourteen-day period as permitted by Civ.R.
    53(D)(4)(e)(i).     If any party timely files objections, any other party may also file
    objections not later than ten days after the first objections are filed.” Plaintiff timely filed
    an objection on October 7, 2009, and defendant timely filed an objection on October 19,
    2009.
    {¶ 3} Plaintiff alleges that defendant was negligent in failing to provide him
    proper prescription medication to treat his psoriasis and that, as a result, he
    experienced severe symptoms of that disease while in defendant’s custody.                        The
    magistrate found that to the extent plaintiff’s claim concerns “the professional skill and
    judgment used by the physicians who treated him,” plaintiff asserts a medical
    Case No. 2004-11040                         -2-                      JUDGMENT ENTRY
    malpractice claim that requires the introduction of expert testimony both to establish the
    requisite standard of care and to show that defendant’s employees deviated from that
    standard of care. The magistrate further found that “[b]ased upon the totality of the
    evidence, as well as plaintiff’s failure to introduce expert testimony, * * * plaintiff has
    failed to prove his claim of negligence by a preponderance of the evidence.”
    {¶ 4} In his objection, plaintiff argues that the magistrate erred in finding that his
    claim is one for medical malpractice. Plaintiff asserts that at a prior juncture in this
    matter, the Tenth District Court of Appeals held that his allegations do not constitute
    such a claim. See Johnson v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., Franklin App. No. 06AP-196,
    
    2006-Ohio-6432
    . However, Johnson did not address whether plaintiff’s claim is one for
    medical malpractice; instead, it pertained to whether defendant showed at the summary
    judgment stage that it is a “hospital” for the purposes of former R.C. 2305.11, which
    required that “medical claims” against, inter alia, hospitals be brought within one year
    after accrual.   The appellate court merely held that due to defendant’s failure to
    establish that it met the statutory definition of “hospital,” it was not entitled to summary
    judgment under former R.C. 2305.11. Accordingly, the magistrate was not precluded
    under Johnson from finding that plaintiff asserts a medical malpractice claim.
    {¶ 5} Defendant argues in its objection that the magistrate erred in not
    concluding that plaintiff’s claim is time-barred under former R.C. 2305.11. Upon review,
    defendant’s objection is not well-taken.
    {¶ 6} Upon review of the record, the magistrate’s decision and the objections,
    the court finds that the magistrate has properly determined the factual issues and
    appropriately applied the law. Therefore, the objections are OVERRULED and the court
    adopts the magistrate’s decision and recommendation as its own, including findings of
    fact and conclusions of law contained therein.         Judgment is rendered in favor of
    defendant. Court costs are assessed against plaintiff. The clerk shall serve upon all
    parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal.
    Case No. 2004-11040                   -3-                   JUDGMENT ENTRY
    _____________________________________
    J. CRAIG WRIGHT
    Judge
    cc:
    Emily M. Simmons                       James R. Rimedio
    Naomi H. Maletz                        P.O. Box 11358
    Assistant Attorneys General            Cincinnati, Ohio 45211
    150 East Gay Street, 18th Floor
    Columbus, Ohio 43215-3130
    Roger C. Stridsberg
    7280 Royalgreen Drive
    Cincinnati, Ohio 45244-3525
    RCV/cmd
    Filed December 14, 2009
    To S.C. reporter December 29, 2009
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2004-11040

Judges: Wright

Filed Date: 12/14/2009

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 3/3/2016