Wiltz v. Ohio State Univ. Wexner Med. Ctr. , 2023 Ohio 2655 ( 2023 )

[Cite as Wiltz v. Ohio State Univ. Wexner Med. Ctr., 2023-Ohio-2655.]
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO
CASSANDRA WILTZ Case No. 2021-00735JD
Plaintiff Magistrate Scott Sheets
v. DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE
THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY
WEXNER MEDICAL CENTER
Defendant
{¶1} Plaintiff Cassandra Wiltz (plaintiff), who is self-represented, seeks recovery
for Defendant OSU Wexner Medical Center’s (defendant) alleged refusal to provide
plaintiff with her medical records from 2017, which she further alleges caused the
dismissal of her previous civil case(s) against defendant. In addition, she seeks recovery
for defendant’s alleged refusal to provide her with medical care and its alleged alteration
of her medical records. As a consequence of defendant’s alleged actions, plaintiff also
asserts that other third-party medical providers refused to provide her with care. Trial
took place on June 5-6, 2023. In addition to plaintiff, Dr. Lawand Saadulla, Dr. Na Li,
George Xanthopoulos, and Ashly O’Neil, who are both employees of defendant, also
testified. Exhibits admitted into evidence consisted of documents and a recording of a
phone message from plaintiff’s home phone answering machine. For the following
reasons, the magistrate hereby recommends judgment for defendant.1
Findings of Fact
{¶2} Initially, the magistrate finds that plaintiff’s entire testimony lacked credibility
for several reasons including his first-hand observation of plaintiff while testifying. In
1
At the close of plaintiff’s presentation of evidence, defendant moved for dismissal pursuant to
Civ.R. 41(B)(2). In accordance with the rule, the magistrate declines to render judgment on defendant’s
motion and instead renders judgment based on all of the evidence presented.
Case No. 2021-00735JD -2- DECISION
addition, plaintiff’s version of the facts, the substance of her testimony, is simply hard to
believe. By plaintiff’s account, Dr. Na Li met with plaintiff on an unspecified date in late
December of 2019, refused to treat plaintiff, and instead informed plaintiff that she, Dr. Li,
would not treat plaintiff because of plaintiff’s civil case(s) and other complaints against
defendant and/or its employees. Plaintiff also claimed that Dr. Li never provided her with
medical care, that Dr. Li lied to the court about a December 18, 2019 medical visit at Dr.
Li’s office, and that someone fabricated Exhibit B, a copy of plaintiff’s medical records
from plaintiff’s December 18, 2019 medical visit with Dr. Li that contains great detail
regarding the visit as well as plaintiff’s personal medical history. Plaintiff offered no
evidence to corroborate her version of her encounter with Dr. Li, which conflicts with the
other evidence presented at trial including Dr. Li’s testimony of a routine medical
encounter with plaintiff.
{¶3} Plaintiff’s testimony also included a great amount of hearsay. In some cases,
plaintiff testified to double-hearsay, i.e. that someone from a physician’s office told her
what someone from defendant had said to them. In some of these instances, plaintiff did
not identify the alleged speaker of these statements.
{¶4} In addition, on cross-examination, plaintiff was extremely evasive. For
example, when asked about her purported answers to interrogatories in this case, plaintiff
would not answer simple questions about these responses clearly and directly. Even
when asked to confirm what appears to be her notarized signature on the responses,
plaintiff simply would not provide a clear, direct answer.
{¶5} Finally, plaintiff’s testimony both lacked corroborating evidence and, in several
important instances, was contradicted by other evidence including evidence that plaintiff
presented. For example, plaintiff testified that Dr. Saadulla referred her to defendant in
June of 2019 and again in October of 2019 while Dr. Saadulla testified that his records
only indicate one referral to defendant in October of 2019.
{¶6} With the foregoing in mind, the magistrate makes the following additional
factual findings. As part of discovery in a previous case before this court, Case No. 2019-
00404JD, defendant provided plaintiff with her OSU medical records from January 19,
2010 to April 11, 2019. As part of this production, defendant provided plaintiff with her
2017 medical file. Both Mr. Xanthopoulous and Ms. O’Neal, records custodians for
Case No. 2021-00735JD -3- DECISION
defendant, testified they do not alter or amend records when responding to requests. In
addition, Exhibit 31 is a certification that states that defendant provided plaintiff with
copies of her “original medical records maintained by the Medical Information
Management Department at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center * * * for
date(s) of service: 01/19/2010 to 04/11/2019.” This certification contains Ms. O’ Neal’s
notarized signature, dated April 15, 2019. Also, in Exhibit D, the court’s decision
dismissing Case No. 2019-00404JD, the court noted plaintiff’s contention that she had
not been provided with her complete medical file before it found:
Defendants’ counsel has repeatedly informed the court that he has provided
plaintiff with the requested medical records. In fact, defendants’ counsel
swore in an affidavit that he provided the records, and he also included a
proof of delivery signed by plaintiff. (December 23, 2019 Affidavit of Brian
M. Kneafsey, Jr.) The court, therefore, finds that defendants have proven
that the medical records plaintiff requested have been provided to her.
(Exhibit D - Decision in Case No. 2019-00404JD p. 3.)
The court dismissed Case No. 2019-00404JD without prejudice. Id. Though plaintiff
testified that she never received her 2017 medical file, the other evidence presented at
trial greatly outweighed plaintiff’s testimony. Further, as noted, the magistrate did not find
plaintiff credible.
{¶7} Defendant did not alter any of plaintiff’s medical records. Though plaintiff
testified that her records from 2010-2016 had been altered resulting in the denial of
medical treatment, the magistrate did not find her testimony credible. Plaintiff presented
no objective evidence in support of this assertion. Even plaintiff’s testimony failed to
provide any specifics regarding which records were altered, how they were altered, when
they were altered, who altered them, or any other specific facts.
{¶8} Due to several health issues, plaintiff saw Dr. Lawand Saadulla, who is not an
employee of defendant, in May of 2019. Dr. Saadulla is a kidney specialist. After ruling
out kidney issues, Dr. Saadulla referred plaintiff to Dr. Li, a hepatologist or doctor
specializing in the liver. Dr. Saadulla made the referral due to plaintiff’s elevated bilirubin
level, which can be a possible indicator of liver problems. Dr. Li, Dr. Saadulla, and plaintiff
testified to the above.
Case No. 2021-00735JD -4- DECISION
{¶9} Though Dr. Saadulla saw plaintiff in May of 2019, he did not refer her to Dr. Li
until October of 2019. Though he referred plaintiff to OhioHealth gastroenterology in June
of 2019, the October 2019 referral was the only referral to defendant. Dr. Saadulla looked
up Dr. Li online because there were no hepatologist in Delaware County. Dr. Saadulla
testified to his treatment and interactions with plaintiff as well as the referrals, copies of
which were admitted into evidence as Exhibits 23, 25, and 26. He also testified plaintiff’s
October 19, 2019 letter to him, Exhibit 24, prompted the referral to defendant. The
magistrate found Dr. Saadulla’s testimony credible.
{¶10} After Dr. Saadulla’s October 23, 2019 referral, Dr. Na Li saw plaintiff on
December 18, 2019. At the time that she saw plaintiff on December 18, 2019, Dr. Li did
not know about plaintiff’s lawsuit against defendant. Exhibit B reflects plaintiff’s December
18, 2019 medical visit with Dr. Li. It is approximately 40 pages and contains substantial
indicia of reliability including details about the visit such as Dr. Li’s progress notes, plan
and assessment as well as notes on plaintiff’s medical history, medications and vital
statistics. Though Dr. Li could not recall her specific visit with plaintiff, she testified that
she would only create Exhibit B after seeing plaintiff as a patient. In addition, she offered
detailed testimony regarding various components of Exhibit B and how they reflected
what she would have discussed and covered with plaintiff during the December 18, 2019
visit. Dr. Li testified to the above and the magistrate found her credible. Dr. Li
unequivocally denied that she refused to treat plaintiff. She was not evasive in any way,
provided direct answers, and her testimony was consistent with both Exhibit B and the
facts relative to Dr. Saadulla’s referral. In addition, the substance of Dr. Li’s testimony is,
quite simply, inherently more believable than the substance of plaintiff’s testimony. Her
testimony reflected a routine encounter with plaintiff after a referral by Dr. Saadulla. This
was Dr. Li’s only medical visit with plaintiff.
{¶11} The magistrate finds that the encounter plaintiff described wherein Dr. Li
refused to treat plaintiff because of plaintiff’s civil case(s) or other complaints did not
happen. Plaintiff’s evidence regarding her encounter with Dr. Li consisted entirely of her
own testimony as to hearsay statements she claimed Dr. Li made to her during a
December 2019 encounter at Dr. Li’s office. According to plaintiff, Dr. Li set up an
appointment for her near the end of December of 2019. After plaintiff completed a
Case No. 2021-00735JD -5- DECISION
questionnaire at Dr. Li’s office, Dr. Li met with plaintiff and informed plaintiff that there was
nothing wrong with her, that Dr. Li would not be treating her, that Dr. Li knew that plaintiff
likes to make complaints, and that Dr. Li would not see her because of these complaints.
Plaintiff further asserted that she believed that Dr. Li was referring to plaintiff’s 2019
lawsuit against defendant and/or other informal complaints plaintiff had made against
defendant, none of which involved Dr. Li. Finally, plaintiff testified that Dr. Li called her in
the last few days of December of 2019 to tell plaintiff that no one from defendant would
treat plaintiff. As noted, the magistrate did not find plaintiff’s testimony credible. The
other evidence in the case, including Dr. Li and Dr. Saddulla’s testimony and the records
admitted into evidence, also greatly outweighed plaintiff’s testimony regarding her referral
to and encounter with Dr. Li.
{¶12} Neither defendant nor any of its employees denied plaintiff medical care.
Likewise, neither defendant nor any of its employees caused other medical providers to
deny plaintiff medical care. Though the facts relative to Dr. Li have already been
discussed, plaintiff also made several other allegations against physicians, both those
employed by defendant and others, that the magistrate did not find credible. Apart from
her own testimony, filled with hearsay, plaintiff offered no evidence that any medical
provider denied her care. For instance, plaintiff testified that a person named Courtney
Francis, from Grady Memorial Hospital, referred plaintiff to defendant for a medical test
in January or February of 2020. Plaintiff further testified that Ms. Francis told plaintiff
that defendant would not schedule plaintiff for the test, that it would not accept the referral
and that plaintiff should try to schedule the test herself by contacting defendant. Ms.
Francis did not testify at trial. Plaintiff’s testimony on this alleged incident is based entirely
on hearsay and, thus, not credible. Further, though plaintiff offered Exhibit 30, a purported
phone message from Ms. Francis, in support of her testimony, this message mentions
nothing about defendant refusing services to plaintiff. In it, the speaker indicates she is
following up with plaintiff regarding the test’s scheduling and provides a phone number
that can be used to schedule the test with defendant.
{¶13} Likewise, plaintiff provided similar testimony regarding a thrush diagnosis.
Again, plaintiff offered her testimony alone; no medical providers or any other witnesses
testified. In general, plaintiff testified to being diagnosed with thrush and being referred
Case No. 2021-00735JD -6- DECISION
to defendant to see an oral pathologist in February of 2021. Plaintiff testified that
defendant would not call her back. Plaintiff also testified that the referring physician, who
was not defendant’s employee, removed documentation from her medical file related to
the referral and circulated a letter indicating that defendant had previously evaluated
plaintiff and found nothing wrong with her. Plaintiff further claimed that a
gastroenterologist cited medical records from defendant as a basis for cancelling an
endoscopy and would not treat her and that an oral pathologist in Westerville, Ohio told
her they would not treat her because of defendant and/or what was in plaintiff’s medical
records. Plaintiff’s testimony was completely uncorroborated and not credible.
Conclusions of Law
{¶14} To meet her burden at trial, plaintiff needed to prove her claims by a
preponderance of the evidence. As stated in Brothers v. Morrone-O’Keefe Dev. Co., LLC,
10th Dist. No. 06AP-713, 2007 Ohio 1942, 2007 Ohio App. Lexis 1762, ¶ 49: “[a]
preponderance of the evidence is ‘the greater weight of the evidence * * * [it] means
evidence that is more probable, more persuasive, or of greater probative value.’”
{¶15} The magistrate can take judicial notice of the court’s decisions in plaintiff’s
previous cases which, in addition to being maintained by the clerk, are publicly accessible
via the Court’s online case information system as well as. Evid. R. 201; State ex rel.
Nyamusevya v. Hawkins, 10th Dist. No. 19AP-199, 2020-Ohio-2690, ¶¶ 12; 33, State ex
rel. Ohio Republican Party v. Fitzgerald, 145 Ohio St.3d 92, 2015-Ohio-5056, ¶ 18;
Draughon v. Jenkins, 4th Dist. No. 16CA3528, 2016-Ohio-5364, ¶ 26, citing State ex rel.
Everhart v. McIntosh, 115 Ohio St.3d 195, 2007-Ohio-4798, ¶ 8, 10; Woods Cove III, LLC
v. Straight, 10th Dist. No. 17AP-340, 2018-Ohio-2906, ¶ 22-23.
{¶16} Ohio does not recognize a claim for the negligent failure to produce medical
records. Frank v. Univ. of Cin. Med. Ctr., 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-220242, 2023 Ohio
1255, ¶ 13.
{¶17} On the trial of a civil case, the weight to be accorded to the evidence and the
credibility of the witnesses is primarily for the trier of the fact to determine. State v.
DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230, 227 N.E.2d 212 (1967), paragraph one of the syllabus. The
magistrate is the trier-of-fact in this case and must give appropriate weight to the evidence
Case No. 2021-00735JD -7- DECISION
presented. The magistrate is free to believe all, part, or none of the testimony of any
witness. See State v. Green, 1Oth Dist. Franklin No. 03AP-813, 2004-0hio-3697, ¶ 24.
DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION
{¶18} The magistrate finds that plaintiff failed to prove the facts underlying her
claims by a preponderance of the evidence. The magistrate finds that plaintiff’s testimony
as a whole was not credible for the various reasons previously set forth. The magistrate
finds that Dr. Li, Dr. Saadulla, Mr. Xanthopoulous and Ms. O’Neal were all credible.
Consequently, plaintiff failed to prove that defendant did not provide her with her 2017
medical record, failed to prove that defendant altered her medical records, failed to prove
that Dr. Li or anyone else on defendant’s behalf denied her medical care, and failed to
prove that defendant’s actions resulted in other providers denying her medical care. In
fact, the evidence established that defendant provided plaintiff with her 2017 medical file
as part of discovery in a previous case and that Dr. Li saw plaintiff on December 18, 2019
after Dr. Saadulla’s referral in October of 2019.
{¶19} For the reasons stated above, the magistrate recommends judgment in
defendant’s favor.
{¶20} A party may file written objections to the magistrate’s decision within 14 days
of the filing of the decision, whether or not the court has adopted the decision during that
14-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. A party shall not assign as error on appeal the court’s adoption of any factual
finding or legal conclusion, whether or not specifically designated as a finding of fact or
conclusion of law under Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(ii), unless the party timely and specifically
objects to that factual finding or legal conclusion within 14 days of the filing of the decision,
as required by Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b).
SCOTT SHEETS
Magistrate
Case No. 2021-00735JD -8- DECISION
Filed June 27, 2023
Sent to S.C. Reporter 7/31/23