Opinion
2022-00760AD
04-11-2023
TYRONE WILLIAMS Plaintiff v. OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION Defendant
Sent to S.C. Reporter 7/14/23
MEMORANDUM DECISION
FINDINGS OF FACT
{¶1} Tyrone Williams ("plaintiff), an inmate, filed a complaint against the defendant, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction ("ODRC"). Plaintiff related on July 10, 2022, at defendant's Marion Correctional Institution ("MCI"), he sat down at a table in the dining room that broke causing injuries to his back. Plaintiff stated that the fall aggravated a previous back injury. Plaintiff asserted that he was denied adequate medical care because MCI did not send him to a specialist. Plaintiff also claimed that defendant was negligent as to the condition of the table. Plaintiff seeks damages in the amount of $10,000. Plaintiff was not required to submit the $25.00 filing fee.
{¶2} Defendant submitted an Investigation Report denying liability in this matter. Defendant admitted that the accident occurred. However, it denied any negligence. Defendant detailed the medical treatment plaintiff received as a result of the fall. First, immediately after the incident, plaintiff was evaluated by MCI medical staff and then transported to Marion General Hospital. The hospital diagnosed plaintiff with a possible muscle strain and released plaintiff from care the same day. Marion General Hospital prescribed Motrin and stretches as treatment. On July 12, 2022, plaintiff requested health care services for numbness and back pain. He was seen by MCI medical staff the same day and advised to continue the treatment from the hospital and was scheduled for a follow-up with MCI medical staff on July 14, 2022. On July 20, 2022, plaintiff requested medical treatment but refused treatment and signed a medical release. Plaintiff was seen by a doctor on July 21, 2022, and prescribed medication for inflammation and an antibiotic ointment. Plaintiff was also seen on August 4, August 8, August 16, August 18, August 19, September 13, October 5, October 12, November 7, November 14, and November 17, 2022. During these appointments, plaintiff received an x-ray, EMG, tramadol, lab work, a rollator, and was scheduled for an MRI. Defendant asserted that it has not denied plaintiff adequate medical care.
{¶3} Defendant stated that plaintiff has failed to prove negligence based on premises liability because it did not have notice regarding the bolts that broke on the table.
{¶4} Defendant contended that plaintiff failed to prove a claim for medical negligence or substandard medical care because he has not provided evidence of an expert medical opinion or of adverse medical effects from defendant's medical treatment of plaintiff.
{¶5} Plaintiff submitted a response to defendant's Investigation Report reasserting his claim. Plaintiff made a bare assertion that ODRC breached its duty to keep the tables in a safe manner. Plaintiff cited measures taken after the table broke to establish negligence. Finally, plaintiff stated that he has been diagnosed with a pinched nerve and bulging disc and will be seen by a neurologist.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
{¶6} To establish a cause of action for negligence, a plaintiff must show the existence of a duty, breach of that duty, and an injury proximately caused by the breach. Texler v. D.O. Summers Cleaners & Shirt Laundry Co., 81 Ohio St.3d 677, 680, 1998-Ohio-602, 693 N.E.2d 271. Generally, under Ohio law, premises liability is dependent upon the injured person's status as an invitee, licensee, or a trespasser. Gladon v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority, 75 Ohio St.3d 312, 315, 1996-Ohio-137, 662 N.E.2d 287. However, with respect to custodial relationships between the state and its inmates, the state has a duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent prisoners in its custody from being injured by dangerous conditions about which the state knows or should know. Moore v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr, 89 Ohio App.3d 107, 112, 623 N.E.2d 1214 (10th Dist. 1993). Though prison officials are not insurers of an inmate's safety, they generally owe inmates a duty of reasonable care and protection from harm. Williams v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr, 10th Dist. App. No. 04AP-1193, 2005-Ohio-2669, ¶ 8, citing Briscoe v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 10th Dist. App. No. 02AP-1109, 2003-Ohio-3533.
{¶7} Reasonable or ordinary care is that degree of caution and foresight which an ordinarily prudent person would employ in similar circumstances. Smith v. United Properties, Inc., 2 Ohio St.2d 310, 313, 209 N.E.2d 142 (1965). The state has a duty to maintain its prisons in a reasonably safe condition. Clemets v. Heston, 20 Ohio App.3d 132, 136, 485 N.E.2d 287 (6th Dist. 1985). Although the state is not the insurer of the safety of its prisoners, once it becomes aware of a dangerous condition in the prison, it is required to take the reasonable care necessary to make certain the prisoner is not injured. Briscoe v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 10th Dist. No. 02AP-1109, 2003-Ohio-3533, ¶ 20.
{¶8} After review of plaintiff's complaint, defendant's Investigation Report, and other evidence in the claim file, the court makes the following determination: The circumstances of plaintiff's injury raises the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to support allegations that defendant breached its duty of care. The doctrine warrants an inference of negligence. Such inference, however, may be rebutted by defendant. Taxi Cabs of Cincinnati, Inc. v. Kohler, 111 Ohio App. 225, 165 N.E.2d 244, syllabus (1st Dist. 1959).
{¶9} Res ipsa loquitur is a rule of evidence, not a rule of substantive law, and the court must analyze such evidence, along with all the other evidence offered in a case to determine liability. Hake v. Wiedeman Brewing Co., 23 Ohio St.2d 65, 66, 262 N.E.2d 703 (1970).
To warrant application of a rule, a plaintiff must adduce evidence in support of two conclusions: (1) that the instrumentality causing the injury was, at the time of the injury, or at the time of the creation of the condition causing the injury, under the exclusive management and control of the defendant; and (2) that the injury occurred under such circumstances that in the ordinary course of events, it would not have occurred if ordinary care had been observed. (Citations omitted.) Whether sufficient evidence has been adduced at trial to warrant application of the rule is a question of law to be determined *** by the trial court ***. Hake at 66-67. See also, 70 Ohio Jurisprudence 3d (1986), 300-301, Negligence, Section 159. Therefore, the court is required to consider the facts and
circumstances surrounding the situation to determine if res ipsa loquitur is applicable. See Howard v. Pennsylvania Rd. Co., 43 Ohio App. 96, 182 N.E. 663 (6th Dist. 1930).
{¶10} The facts of this case concisely presented are 1) plaintiff was seated at a table in the dining hall, the table was under the control of defendant, and 2) tables do not fall back normally unless negligence is involved. Defendant does not assert that the table was tampered with by other inmates, which would relieve defendant of liability. See Nusbaum v. Department of Transportation, 2005-03702-AD (2006); Trivisondoli v. Ohio Department of Transportation, 2008-09198-AD (2009); Stolarsky v. Ohio Dept of Transp., 2019-00996-AD, 2020-Ohio-2840; and Carter v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 2020-00093-AD, 2020-Ohio-7070.
{¶11} The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, with its inference of negligence, applies under the facts of the instant claim. The inference of negligence remains and plaintiff is not required to exclude all possible causes of the accident. See Fink v. New York C.R. Co., 144 Ohio St. 1, 56 N.E.2d 456 (1944); Nanashe v. Lemmon, 9th Dist. No. 4747, 162 N.E.2d 569 (1958).
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is one of necessity, applicable where the agency or place of the accident is accessible only to the defendant and under his control, and raises an inference of negligence requiring the defendant to explain the accident, if he can, on grounds other than his negligence, when its nature is such as to make it probable that it would ordinarily not have happened except for his negligence. The doctrine is regarded as a qualification of the rule that negligence is not presumed or inferred from the mere fact of injury, and there is no necessity of establishing knowledge where the doctrine applies.
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is founded on an absence of specific proof of acts or omissions constituting negligence, and the particular justice of the doctrine rests upon the foundation that the true cause of the occurrence, whether innocent or culpable, is within the knowledge or access of the defendant and not within the knowledge or access of the plaintiff.
(Citations omitted.) (Emphasis added.) 70 Ohio Jurisprudence 3d, 296-297, Negligence, Section 157 (1986).
{¶12} Upon review of the circumstances concerning plaintiff's injuries, and in viewing the evidence most favorably to plaintiff, as the court must do in determining whether res ipsa loquitur applies (Howard v. Pennsylvania Rd. Co., 43 Ohio App. 96, 182 N.E. 663, 6th Dist. 1930). The court finds that said doctrine is applicable in the instant action.
{¶13} It is not clear whether plaintiff is asserting a claim of medical malpractice, or mere negligence in a failure to provide adequate medical treatment. To establish a claim of medical malpractice, plaintiff "must show the existence of a standard of care within the medical community, breach of that standard of care by the defendant, and proximate cause between the medical negligence and the injury sustained." Taylor v. McCullough-Hyde Mem. Hosp., 116 Ohio App.3d 595, 599, 688 N.E.2d 1078 (12th Dist. 1996); citing Bruni v. Tatsumi, 46 Ohio St.2d 127, 131-132, 346 N.E.2d 673 (1976).
{¶14} The exception to that rule is "in cases where the nature of the case is such that the lack of skill or care of the physician and surgeon is so apparent as to be within the comprehension of laymen and requires only common knowledge and experience to understand and judge it ***." Bruni at 130. However, the exception is limited in scope and "[relatively few courts in Ohio have found the common knowledge exception applicable so as to obviate the need for expert witness testimony on the malpractice issue." Buerger v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 64 Ohio App.3d 394, 399, 581 N.E.2d 1114 (10th Dist. 1989). Plaintiffs allegation of medical negligence is not the type for which this exception would apply.
{¶15} In Buerger, the Tenth District Court of Appeals found the Bruni v. Tatsumi standard applicable to a claim of medical malpractice brought by a prisoner. When a plaintiff is alleging substandard medical treatment, expert medical opinion must be provided to establish a prima facie case. Plaintiff may not simply rest upon allegations of medical negligence as stated in his complaint. See Saunders v. Cardiology Consultants, Inc., 66 Ohio App.3d 418, 420, 584 N.E.2d 809 (1st Dist. 1990); Hoffman v. Davidson, 31 Ohio St.3d 60, 61, 508 N.E.2d 958 (1987); Guth v. Huron Road Hospital, 43 Ohio App.3d 83, 84, 539 N.E.2d 670 (8th Dist. 1987). In the present claim, plaintiff has failed to produce expert medical opinion.
{¶16} When alleging substandard medical treatment, the standard is the same. In the present claim, plaintiff has failed to produce expert medical opinion regarding his allegation that he received inadequate medical treatment. Thus, his claim for medical negligence must be denied.
{¶17} Therefore, judgment is rendered in favor of the defendant.
ENTRY OF ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION
{¶18} Having considered all the evidence in the claim file, and for the reasons set forth in the memorandum decision filed concurrently herewith, judgment is rendered in favor of defendant. Court costs are assessed against plaintiff.