Therefore, "[w]hen deciding a summary-judgment motion, it is generally error for a court to rely on other types of evidence that has not been authenticated by way of an attached affidavit." Id., citing State ex rel. Boggs v. Springfield Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 72 Ohio St.3d 94, 97, 647 N.E.2d 788 (1995); Rogoff v. King, 91 Ohio App.3d 438, 446, 632 N.E.2d 977 (8th Dist.1993). {¶ 15} King and Iyahen's counterclaim is before the court on Stevenson's motion to dismiss.

{¶ 28} An expert opinion may be incorporated by reference into a motion for summary judgment by means of a properly framed affidavit. See, e.g., Rogoff v. King (1993), 91 Ohio App.3d 438, 446. However, it is axiomatic that facts presented in affidavits supporting or opposing summary judgment must be of the type which would be admissible at trial.

To prove his medical malpractice claim under Ohio law, Mantell was required to provide expert testimony regarding the recognized medical standards and whether his doctors breached those standards. Rogoff v. King, 91 Ohio App.3d 438, 445 (Ohio Ct.App.1993) "Failure to establish the recognized standards of the medical community has been fatal to the presentation of a prima facie case of malpractice by the plaintiff [.]" Bruni v. Tatsumi, 46 Ohio St.2d 127, 131, (Ohio 1976); Buerger v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 64 Ohio App.3d 394, 398, (Ohio Ct.App.1989). A plaintiff's failure to produce expert evidence on the standard of care or medical records showing lack of care generally results in dismissal.

"The issue as to whether the physician or surgeon has proceeded in the treatment of a patient with the requisite standard of care and skill must ordinarily be determined from the testimony of experts." Rogoff v. King, 91 Ohio App.3d 438, 445 (Ohio Ct.App. 1993). Further, Clarke was required to prove causation via expert testimony.

Id. at 131, 346 N.E.2d at 677 (citations omitted). See also Rogoff v. King, 91 Ohio App.3d 438, 444-45, 632 N.E.2d 977, 981 (Ohio App. 1993) (compliance with the standard of care and issues of proximate causation generally established through expert testimony). Every witness on the issue agreed, albeit reluctantly in some cases, that under the applicable standard of care, Smith's ESR results should have been reviewed before April 6. Most witnesses agreed that by two or three days after the test was done on March 30, someone should have been looking for the test results, and the response to the abnormal ESR would likely have led to an earlier discovery of Smith's abscess.

{¶ 14} When deciding a summary-judgment motion, it is generally error for a court to rely on other types of evidence that have not been authenticated by way of an attached affidavit. State ex rel. Boggs v. Springfield Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn. , 72 Ohio St.3d 94, 97, 647 N.E.2d 788 (1995) ; Rogoff v. King , 91 Ohio App.3d 438, 446, 632 N.E.2d 977 (8th Dist.1993) ("The proper procedure for the introduction of evidentiary matter not specifically authorized by Civ.R. 56(C) is to incorporate the material by reference into a properly framed affidavit"). However, a reviewing court "may consider evidence other than that listed in Civ.R. 56 when there is no objection."

When deciding a summary-judgment motion, it is generally error for a court to rely on other types of evidence that has not been authenticated by way of an attached affidavit. State ex rel. Boggs v. Springfield Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn. , 72 Ohio St.3d 94, 97, 647 N.E.2d 788 (1995) ; Rogoff v. King , 91 Ohio App.3d 438, 446, 632 N.E.2d 977 (8th Dist.1993) ("The proper procedure for the introduction of evidentiary matter not specifically authorized by Civ.R. 56(C) is to incorporate the material by reference into a properly framed affidavit"). {¶ 11} The only document relating to Supreme Court case No. 2018-0147 that Judge Russo attached to her summary-judgment motion and that is arguably a type of evidence listed in Civ.R. 56(C) is Parker's complaint; it is a "pleading" under Civ.R. 7(A).

State ex rel. Parker v. Russo, 158 Ohio St.3d 123, 2019-Ohio-4420, 140 N.E.3d 602, ¶ 10, citing State ex rel. Boggs v. Springfield Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 72 Ohio St.3d 94, 97, 647 N.E.2d 788 (1995), and Rogoff v. King, 91 Ohio App.3d 438, 446, 632 N.E.2d 977 (8th Dist. 1993) ("The proper procedure for the introduction of evidentiary matter not specifically authorized by Civ.R. 56(C) is to incorporate the material by reference into a properly framed affidavit.")

See, also, Civ. Rule 52, which states: "Findings of fact and conclusions of law required by this rule and by ... are unnecessary upon all other motions including those pursuant to Rule 12, Rule 55 and Rule 56." Id. at para. 3 (Emphasis added). Indeed, a "trial court need not enunciate any definitive statement concerning the court's rationale for ruling on a motion for summary judgment but need only issue 'a clear and concise pronouncement of the judgment' and 'a sufficient pronouncement of its decision upon which to review the issues raised by appellants' appeal.'" State ex rel. Ames v. Pokorny, 11th Dist. Portage No. 2022-P-0007, 2022-Ohio-1102, ¶ 3, quoting Rogoff v. King, 91 Ohio App.3d 438, 449, 632 N.E.2d 977 (8th Dist.1993).

As a result, a court may not consider other forms of evidence except those specified by Civ.R. 56(C). Id., citing State ex rel. Boggs v. SpringfieldLocal School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 72 Ohio St.3d 94, 97, 647 N.E.2d 788 (1995); Rogoffv. King, 91 Ohio App.3d 438, 446, 632 N.E.2d 977 (8th Dist.1993). {¶9} "The Public Records Act requires a public office to make copies of public records available to any person on request, within a reasonable period."