The case involved a public records request by a law firm to the Cuyahoga County Board of Health for documentation on homes where minor children had elevated blood lead levels from 2008 to 2011. The board refused to release the approximately 5,000 pages of records, claiming they contained protected health information under R.C. 3701.17, and filed for declaratory judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment to the board, finding that even redacted records could identify individuals. The court of appeals reversed, holding that the board must review each record, redact protected health information, and release the remainder. The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the appeals court decision and remanded the case for the trial court to examine the sample files and responsive records to determine what non-protected information could be disclosed.
The case involved a public records request by a law firm to the Cuyahoga County Board of Health for documentation on homes where minor children had elevated blood lead levels from 2008 to 2011. The board refused to release the approximately 5,000 pages of records, claiming they contained protected health information under R.C. 3701.17, and filed for declaratory judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment to the board, finding that even redacted records could identify individuals. The court of appeals reversed, holding that the board must review each record, redact protected health information, and release the remainder. The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the appeals court decision and remanded the case for the trial court to examine the sample files and responsive records to determine what non-protected information could be disclosed.
The case involved a public records request by a law firm to the Cuyahoga County Board of Health for documentation on homes where minor children had elevated blood lead levels from 2008 to 2011. The board refused to release the approximately 5,000 pages of records, claiming they contained protected health information under R.C. 3701.17, and filed for declaratory judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment to the board, finding that even redacted records could identify individuals. The court of appeals reversed, holding that the board must review each record, redact protected health information, and release the remainder. The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the appeals court decision and remanded the case for the trial court to examine the sample files and responsive records to determine what non-protected information could be disclosed.
The case involved whether the Lockland School District Board of Education violated Ohio's Open Meetings Act by conducting a nonteaching employee's pretermination hearing in executive session rather than publicly. The employee, Adam Stewart, a data coordinator implicated in falsifying student attendance data, objected to the closed session and sought a public hearing under R.C. 121.22(G)(1) before his contract was terminated. The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' grant of summary judgment to the board, concluding that the Act permits private sessions for employee dismissal discussions unless the employee is separately entitled by statute to a public hearing. The court reasoned that Stewart's due process rights under Cleveland Bd. of Edn. v. Loudermill provided notice and an opportunity to be heard but did not require the entire hearing to be public, allowing the board to adjourn into executive session for deliberations.
The case concerned whether the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District had statutory and charter authority under R.C. Chapter 6119 to create a regional stormwater-management program funded by fees charged to landowners based on impervious surfaces. The trial court upheld the program and fees, but the court of appeals reversed, holding that the district's powers were limited to supplying water and handling wastewater containing waste and did not extend to stormwater management. The Ohio Supreme Court reversed the appellate decision, concluding that the statutory language authorizing collection, treatment, and disposal of wastewater encompasses stormwater and that the fees qualify as charges for the use or service of a water resource project. The Court also found corresponding authority in the district's charter. The ruling resolved the dispute in favor of the Sewer District without addressing constitutional challenges to the fees.
The case concerned whether an umbrella insurance policy required Auto-Owners to defend landlords Granger and Steigerwald against federal claims of housing discrimination based on race and familial status, where the policy excluded coverage for personal injury expected or intended by the insured. The Ohio Supreme Court held that the insurer had a duty to defend because the policy's coverage for humiliation could extend to alleged emotional-distress damages, and the inferred-intent doctrine did not apply to bar coverage. The court reasoned that emotional distress is not an inherent or intrinsic result of housing discrimination, so the intentional-acts exclusion did not eliminate the possibility of coverage under the policy terms.
_(cropped).jpg?width=900)