Opinion
Case No. 2019-00602JD
02-01-2021
DONNIS DIXON Plaintiff v. OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION Defendant
DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE
{¶1} Plaintiff Donnis Dixon (plaintiff) is an inmate in defendant's custody who is currently incarcerated at Northeast Ohio Correctional Center (NEOCC). Plaintiff seeks money damages for injuries to his back and right leg that he asserts were sustained as a result of alighting from his bed on October 4, 2018 while plaintiff was incarcerated at Richland Correctional Institution (RCI). Plaintiff asserts that defendant acted negligently because it forced him to sleep in a top bunk when he had a valid bottom bunk restriction due to a medical condition. The case proceeded to trial via Zoom videoconference. In addition to plaintiff, Nurse Rachel Wheeler (Nurse Wheeler) and Institutional Inspector Kelly Rose (Mr. Rose) also testified. For the following reasons, the magistrate finds that plaintiff failed to prove his claims and recommends judgment in defendant's favor.
Findings of Fact
{¶2} On October 4, 2018 and while incarcerated at RCI, plaintiff awoke in the middle of the night to use the bathroom. While attempting to get down from the top bunk, plaintiff missed the step he used to get out of bed and fell. Plaintiff did not jump or fall out of bed. Plaintiff's testimony established these facts.
{¶3} On October 9, 2018, plaintiff sought medical treatment for sciatic pain. Plaintiff received medical treatment for this pain which included, among other things, various imaging studies as well as the provision of medication. Plaintiff uses a cane and continues to receive treatment. Plaintiff has a family history of sciatic pain as his mother received treatment for it. Plaintiff and Nurse Wheeler testified to these facts. Plaintiff's medical records from RCI were also admitted into evidence.
{¶4} At the time of his fall on October 4, 2018, plaintiff did not have a bottom bunk restriction in place. The parties presented conflicting evidence on this point. However, as discussed below, the magistrate finds that the greater weight of the evidence established that no restriction existed at the time of plaintiff's fall.
{¶5} Mr. Rose testified that he investigated this incident and, during the investigation, found that plaintiff did not have a bottom bunk restriction at the time of his fall. In addition, Nurse Wheeler testified that no bottom bunk restriction was in place at the time of plaintiff's fall at RCI. She further testified that plaintiff did not receive a bottom bunk restriction until October 11, 2018, a week after plaintiff's fall. Moreover, Nurse Wheeler testified regarding Exhibit 2, a printout from defendant's DOCS system which would reflect what, if any, bunk restrictions were or have been in place for plaintiff. Nurse Wheeler testified that Exhibit 2 reflects that, while plaintiff had a bottom bunk restriction created on May 18, 2018, the restriction was removed that same day. Exhibit 2 also reflects the creation of the October 11, 2018 bottom bunk restriction. Mr. Rose and Nurse Wheeler both appeared credible and offered very clear and direct testimony on this issue.
{¶6} Plaintiff testified emphatically that he had a bottom bunk restriction at the time of his fall. According to plaintiff, he was placed on a bottom bunk restriction due to an issue with his thumb while at NEOCC which should have continued upon his transfer to RCI in September of 2018. Plaintiff also testified that he spoke to his unit manager at RCI, Ms. Cotton, about a bunk restriction and that Ms. Cotton contacted RCI's medical department. According to plaintiff, Ms. Cotton told him that a bottom bunk restriction was in place and/or that the medical department indicated plaintiff had a bottom bunk restriction in place.
{¶7} Though plaintiff seemed to sincerely believe that the restriction existed, there is simply more evidence that it did not. Plaintiff did not present Ms. Cotton as a witness; he offered only his own testimony. His testimony regarding what she and/or the medical department said is hearsay. Moreover, though plaintiff disagreed with the testimony of Nurse Wheeler and Mr. Rose regarding the lack of a bottom bunk restriction, he did not in any way impeach their testimony, elicit anything from them on cross-examination which would undermine their testimony, or otherwise cause the magistrate to question their credibility or the veracity of their testimony. Most importantly, Nurse Wheeler's testimony, supported by Exhibit 2, that plaintiff's previous restriction was created and removed the same day and that plaintiff did not have a restriction in place on the day of his fall was both credible and persuasive.
{¶8} In short, the magistrate finds that the testimony of Nurse Wheeler and Inspector Rose as well as the contents of Exhibit 2 outweighed the evidence plaintiff presented. For these reasons, the magistrate finds that, at the time of his fall on October 4, 2018, plaintiff did not have a bottom bunk restriction in place.
Conclusions of Law
{¶9} Plaintiff bore the burden of proving his claim 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 must more probable, more persuasive, or of greater probative value."
{¶10} As stated in Brown v. Dep't of Rehab. & Corr., 10th Dist. No. 13AP-804, 2014-Ohio-1810, ¶ 14:
To prove actionable negligence, a plaintiff must show the existence of a duty, breach of that duty, and injury proximately caused by the breach. The state owes a duty to inmates to reasonably care for the inmates' health, care, and well-being.Defendant owes a duty of ordinary or reasonable care. However, defendant is not an insurer of inmate safety and "owes the duty of ordinary care only to inmates who are foreseeably at risk." Id; Barksdale v. Ohio Dep't of Rehab. & Corr., 10th Dist. No. 16AP-2017-Ohio-395, ¶ 12. Prisoners must also use "reasonable care to ensure their own safety." Nott v. Ohio Dep't of Rehab. & Corr., 10th Dist. No. 09AP-842, 2010-Ohio-1588, ¶ 8.
{¶11} The burden to establish proximate cause required plaintiff to establish a "connection between the act or omission of defendant" and his claimed injuries. Id. Here, to establish proximate cause relative to his claimed injuries, plaintiff needed to present expert medical testimony. See, Wright v. City of Columbus, 10th Dist. No. 05AP-432, 2006-Ohio-759, ¶ 17-19.
Conclusion
{¶12} The fact that plaintiff fell from bed, in and of itself, does not establish that defendant breached any duty because it is not an insurer of inmate safety. Further, there is no evidence of a hazard such as a defect with plaintiff's bed or a condition with the floor that caused plaintiff's fall. Rather, plaintiff missed the step he used to get out of bed and fell. Thus, the only basis upon which a breach of duty could be found would be if plaintiff had a bottom bunk restriction in place, making plaintiff an inmate who might be foreseeably at risk when defendant assigned plaintiff to a top bunk.
{¶13} However, as indicated above, the greater weight of the evidence at trial established that plaintiff did not have a bottom bunk restriction in place on October 4, 2018. Defendant submitted more evidence, in a quantitative sense, but also evidence of greater probative value and which was more persuasive. Nurse Wheeler, by virtue of her position, possesses institutional knowledge regarding medical restrictions. There is simply no reason for the undersigned not to believe her testimony or the contents of Exhibit 2. Mr. Rose, tasked with investigating this matter, also found that no restriction was in place. This is direct and clear evidence based on first-hand knowledge and institutional records. On the other hand, plaintiff offered only his own strongly held belief that a previous restriction was still in place and hearsay testimony. Finally, Nurse Wheeler's testimony that a restriction was created and removed the same day in May of 2018 is consistent with plaintiff's testimony regarding the receipt of a bottom bunk restriction while at NEOCC previous to his transfer to RCI. Because no bunk restriction existed on the day of plaintiff's fall, plaintiff failed to demonstrate that defendant violated its duty of ordinary care in assigning plaintiff to a top bunk.
{¶14} In addition, even if a bottom bunk restriction were in place, plaintiff failed to establish the causal connection between any non-adherence to it and his fall. Plaintiff admittedly fell as he climbed out of bed because he missed the step he normally used for this purpose. Plaintiff testified that he received a bottom bunk restriction at NEOCC due to his thumb. During the trial, he failed to offer any testimony or other evidence explaining how any problem with his thumb caused his fall. Plaintiff was required to use care to ensure his own safety and the magistrate finds that plaintiff failed to prove that the lack of a bunk restriction as opposed to his own negligence in misjudging his footing was the proximate cause of his fall.
{¶15} Finally, plaintiff presented no expert testimony which would establish proximate cause between his fall and his sciatic nerve pain. Plaintiff has a family history of sciatic nerve pain, did not seek treatment until 5 days after the fall, and seeks recovery for internal injuries which are not readily observable. Plaintiff's failure to provide expert testimony constituted a failure to establish that his fall proximately caused his injuries.
{¶16} Plaintiff failed to establish that defendant breached any duty and failed to establish proximate cause. Based on the foregoing, the magistrate finds plaintiff failed to prove his claims by a preponderance of the evidence and recommends judgment in defendant's favor.
{¶17} 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).
/s/_________
SCOTT SHEETS
Magistrate Filed February 1, 2021
Sent to S.C. Reporter 4/5/21