Susan Brown

The case involved Abdullahi M. Abduleh, who was charged with aggravated burglary, aggravated robbery, felonious assault, and robbery after an alleged November 2018 altercation with his uncle. After Abduleh was found incompetent to stand trial and ordered to undergo restoration treatment, the trial court held a hearing under R.C. 2945.39(A)(2) to decide whether to retain jurisdiction and commit him to Twin Valley Behavioral Healthcare. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's retention of jurisdiction and commitment order. It held that clear and convincing evidence showed Abduleh had committed the charged offenses and that he suffered from a severe mental illness creating a substantial risk of physical harm to others, making him subject to involuntary treatment. The appellate court also upheld the admission of the uncle's recorded police statement under the recorded-recollection hearsay exception, finding it sufficiently reliable based on the uncle's partial corroborating testimony.

criminal lawprocedurehealthcare

This case involves David A. Thompson's appeal from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas' revocation of his judicial release and community control, and the reimposition of a prison sentence, following his 2010 convictions on multiple felony counts (including theft, forgery, and related offenses) arising from his actions as a church pastor. The trial court had originally imposed a split sentence of prison time on some counts followed by consecutive community control on others, granted judicial release in 2015, and later revoked it in 2019 after finding Thompson violated community control by failing to pay adequate restitution. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part, upholding the trial court's conclusion that Thompson's underemployment and insufficient restitution payments were willful under the Bearden standard, as he failed to document job-search efforts or pursue better employment despite later obtaining a UPS job. However, the court sustained an assignment of error regarding the improper structure of consecutive community control after a prison term, rendering several other claims moot, and remanded for further proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a medical negligence and loss of consortium lawsuit brought by John Timothy Gysegem and his wife against Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center. The plaintiffs alleged that during a February 2015 laparoscopic appendectomy for perforated appendicitis, the surgeon failed to remove an appendicolith identified on a pre-operative CT scan, which later caused post-operative complications including fever, jaundice, and fluid collections requiring further procedures. After a bench trial, the Court of Claims entered judgment for the defendant, finding no breach of the standard of care. On appeal, the Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court properly admitted and credited habit evidence under Evid.R. 406 and expert testimony from the defense showing that the surgeon followed his routine practice of removing debris from the abscess cavity, and that the plaintiffs' challenges to that evidence and the sufficiency of the proof were without merit.

torts & liabilityhealthcare

In re Flynn involved a great-aunt, Paula Sauer, who sought to intervene in the parents' dissolution proceeding and obtain court-ordered visitation or companionship time with their minor child under R.C. 3109.051 after the parents' shared parenting plan barred such contact with the father's family. The trial court denied both her motion to intervene and her request for visitation following a hearing at which she was the only witness. The Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court had properly weighed all statutory best-interest factors in R.C. 3109.051(D), including according special weight to the fit parents' wishes, the two-year gap since the appellant last saw the child, and the unclear details surrounding the family rift that ended contact. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion and concluded that the factual findings were not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

family law

The case involved Peter Parker’s appeal from a trial court decision denying his request for a writ of mandamus to compel the State Teachers Retirement System Board of Ohio (STRB) to approve his 2017 application for disability benefits based on multiple sclerosis. Parker had previously received STRS disability benefits, worked briefly in covered employment as a substitute teacher for one day in 2016, and claimed his condition prevented him from performing that role. The Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed the denial, holding that STRB’s decision was supported by “some evidence,” including an independent medical examiner’s opinion that Parker was not incapacitated from his most recent STRS-covered job duties for twelve continuous months, as well as the subsequent review by the Medical Review Board under R.C. 3307.62. The court found the examiner’s report was not equivocal and that STRB had followed the required statutory procedures for evaluating the application and appeal.

labor & employmentprocedure

In State v. Arroyo-Garcia, the defendant appealed the trial court's denial of his 2019 pro se motion to vacate his 2015 convictions for cocaine trafficking, which he claimed were void because they violated double jeopardy. The trial court had treated the motion as an untimely and successive petition for postconviction relief and denied it for lack of jurisdiction under R.C. 2953.23(A). The Court of Appeals denied the state's request to dismiss the appeal as untimely, overruled the defendant's assignment of error, and modified the judgment to reflect a dismissal rather than a denial on the merits. The court reasoned that the motion raised only legal arguments without new facts, newly recognized retroactive rights, or evidence that would meet the statutory exceptions for successive petitions, and that a guilty plea further barred relief under the statute.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved L.A.B., who was 17 at the time of the offenses, challenging his bindover from juvenile court to adult court and subsequent guilty plea conviction for two counts of aggravated robbery arising from a 2017 home invasion in which he and another used what appeared to be a firearm. The Franklin County Juvenile Court granted the state's motion to relinquish jurisdiction after a hearing, finding probable cause and that L.A.B. was not amenable to care or rehabilitation in the juvenile system. On appeal, the Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed the transfer and adult conviction. It held that the juvenile court properly weighed the statutory amenability factors under R.C. 2152.12, including the nature of the offenses and the defendant's prior record, and that no error occurred in declining to consider a serious youthful offender blended sentence, as the prosecutor had not initiated that process and the court had already elected transfer.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Ralph Perpignand's appeal of his jury conviction for sexual battery under R.C. 2907.03(A)(6) in Franklin County Common Pleas Court. Perpignand, a therapeutic program worker at Twin Valley Behavioral Healthcare, was accused of sexually assaulting patient J.W. (who had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder and other conditions) by putting his mouth on her breasts and inserting his gloved fingers into her vagina while taking her blood pressure. The Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the evidence was sufficient because J.W.'s account of the core events was consistent and was corroborated by DNA testing showing Perpignand's profile on her breast swabs at a probability rarer than one in one trillion. The court further ruled that the conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, as minor inconsistencies in timing or details did not undermine the jury's ability to credit the state's witnesses over the defense and find that Perpignand had supervisory authority over J.W. as a patient.

criminal lawprocedure

In this mandamus action, Altercare of Hartville Center, Inc., the employer, challenged an Industrial Commission order granting permanent total disability compensation to worker Erica Ford, who had a 2006 work injury originally allowed for physical back conditions and later for generalized anxiety disorder and depressive disorder. The commission's staff hearing officer relied on medical reports from Drs. Patel, Lyall, Faust, and Pawlarczyk to conclude that Ford was permanently and totally disabled solely due to the allowed psychological conditions. Altercare raised objections alleging insufficient detail in the order, conflicts with prior commission findings on non-allowed conditions, conclusory reports, failure to differentiate allowed versus pre-existing issues, and contradiction by surveillance evidence. The Tenth District Court of Appeals adopted the magistrate's findings, overruled the objections, and denied the writ, holding that the order was supported by some evidence properly focused on the allowed conditions and that the commission did not abuse its discretion.

labor & employment

The case involved an employer's request for a writ of mandamus to vacate an Industrial Commission order awarding temporary total disability compensation and additional medical treatment to claimant Micaela L. Wolfe for her allowed work-related conditions, including a left ankle sprain, peroneal tendon tear, and deep vein thrombosis that developed after surgery. The Tenth District Court of Appeals denied the writ, adopting the magistrate's recommendation and upholding the staff hearing officer's decision. The court found some evidence in the record, including reports from Drs. Reed and Feibel, to support the commission's determination that Wolfe's allowed conditions prevented her return to work, despite conflicting medical opinions. On the employer's claim of voluntary abandonment due to pregnancy, the court held that pregnancy discrimination protections under state and federal law barred treating a pregnant claimant differently from a similarly situated non-pregnant worker and that the commission was not required to address pregnancy once it found the allowed conditions independently disabling.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

In Balalovski v. Tanevski, plaintiff Aleksandar Balalovski sued Dance Tanevski and Lence Tanevski for breach of contract, alleging that he made four undocumented oral loans totaling $25,000 to Dance between 2004 and 2005 to help with financial difficulties, of which only $7,250 had been repaid. Following a bench trial, a magistrate found in the plaintiff's favor and awarded $17,250 in damages; the trial court overruled the defendant's objections and adopted the magistrate's decision, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The courts credited the plaintiff's testimony, supported by cashed checks and payment receipts, that the parties—members of the same Macedonian community who often conducted informal loans—entered into the oral agreements and that the defendant had not fully repaid them. They rejected the defendant's contrary testimony as not credible, including his claim of full repayment, noting inconsistent evidence such as later payments made years afterward.

business & regulatory

Alexis Bogan appealed a May 2019 decision by Mahoning County Children Services upholding a substantiated finding of physical abuse against her, first filing in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas under R.C. 119.12 and later seeking to amend the appeal to R.C. Chapter 2506 while requesting a venue transfer to Mahoning County. The Franklin County court granted MCCS’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and denied the venue change. On appeal, the Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Ohio Adm.Code 5101:2-33-20(H) expressly bars judicial review of the agency decision under R.C. 119.12 or 5101.35, and that even a properly filed R.C. 2506 appeal could only be heard by the Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas, where MCCS’s principal office is located. Because the Franklin County court lacked jurisdiction from the outset, it also lacked authority to transfer the case.

family lawprocedure

The case involved defendant Warriayre Roundtree's appeal from his jury convictions in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas on charges including aggravated murder, murder, aggravated robbery, tampering with evidence, and having a weapon while under disability, all stemming from the January 2017 shooting death of Savaughn Conner outside a Columbus business. The Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions and sentence. The court held that the assignments of error lacked merit, including a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, because the record contained no evidence that a jailhouse witness obtained case details from discovery documents rather than directly from the defendant, and trial counsel had adequately cross-examined the witness on the source of his information.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Walmart seeking a writ of mandamus to overturn the Ohio Industrial Commission's award of temporary total disability (TTD) compensation to employee Dianna Hixson beyond March 6, 2018, the date she voluntarily retired from her job following a work-related shoulder and wrist injury. The Commission had granted ongoing TTD based on prior precedent holding that a claimant's disability at the time of retirement prevented a finding of voluntary abandonment of employment. The Tenth District Court of Appeals granted the writ, ordering the Commission to limit TTD compensation to the period ending on the retirement date. The court reasoned that the Ohio Supreme Court's 2018 decision in State ex rel. Klein v. Precision Excavating overruled earlier exceptions allowing consideration of a claimant's physical capacity to work, establishing that voluntary workforce abandonment (such as retirement) bars further TTD regardless of disability status, and that this rule applies retrospectively to the Commission's earlier order.

labor & employment

In this case, inmate Kristoffer Morris sued the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC) for negligence after he was assaulted in December 2017 at the Toledo Correctional Institution while making a phone call in a segregation unit. Morris, who was in protective custody due to threats related to his criminal case, alleged that ODRC staff failed to prevent a general population inmate and segregation porter, Julian Torres, from accessing the area and attacking him, despite policies separating the two groups. The Court of Claims ruled in favor of ODRC after a trial, finding no liability, and the Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed. The court held that ODRC owes inmates a duty of reasonable care but is not an insurer of their safety, and liability for an inmate-on-inmate assault requires proof of actual or constructive notice of an impending attack. Here, Morris had not reported his prior disputes, debts, or threats from Torres to staff, and no other evidence showed ODRC knew or should have known of the risk beforehand.

torts & liability

The case involved Sterling Robinson's appeal from his jury conviction in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas on one count of trafficking in cocaine, a first-degree felony, arising from a 2018 police investigation that used GPS tracking on his vehicle and physical surveillance during out-of-state trips. Officers linked him to large quantities of cocaine through observations of his movements, including retrieving items from his car in Illinois and carrying a black backpack onto a bus back to Ohio, where the backpack was later found to contain the drugs after he separated from it. The Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the state presented sufficient evidence for the jury to reasonably infer Robinson's knowing transport and possession of the cocaine. The court further concluded that the verdict was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, as the jury could assess witness credibility, resolve minor inconsistencies in testimony, and draw logical connections between the surveillance observations and the recovered drugs without needing additional corroboration.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved defendant Leo Neal, Jr.'s appeal from a Franklin County Common Pleas Court judgment that overruled his objections and adopted a magistrate's decision denying his Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from a default judgment in a foreclosure action. Plaintiff 4030 W. Broad, Inc. had obtained a $15,000 municipal court judgment against Neal, recorded it as a lien on his Columbus property, and filed for foreclosure after serving the complaint by ordinary mail following unclaimed certified mail; the trial court entered default judgment and a foreclosure decree when Neal did not respond. On appeal, the Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Neal failed to show entitlement to relief under Civ.R. 60(B), that his challenges to service, hearing continuances, homestead exemption, and other liens were either meritless, waived for not being raised below, or barred by prior rulings in the underlying municipal court case that had already been affirmed.

propertyprocedure

Arthur Jenkins filed a mandamus action after the Industrial Commission denied his application for an extra workers’ compensation award based on an alleged violation of a specific safety requirement. He had been injured while clearing wood chips from a blower attached to a chipper at Ohio Valley Stave when a motor belt broke and partially amputated his thumb; he claimed the blower lacked required guarding and a readily accessible stop device under Ohio Adm.Code 4123:1-5-09(L)(1). The Commission and the Tenth District Court of Appeals both concluded that the rule did not apply because the blower was a single-function machine that neither combined tools from separate machines nor could be adjusted for multiple woodworking uses. The court therefore upheld the denial, holding that the Commission had not abused its discretion in interpreting the safety regulation.

labor & employmentprocedure

Carlton Love, an African-American pipeline locator employed by the City of Columbus since 1992, sued the city and its Public Utilities Director alleging race discrimination. He claimed he was denied promised pay raises after taking on additional duties and was later fired because of his race and complaints about discrimination. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The court held that the city provided legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for termination—repeated failures to properly mark utility lines, resulting in damage, work-rule violations, and breach of a 2008 last-chance agreement—and that Love failed to show these reasons were pretextual, as the explanations were consistent and tied to the same performance issues.

civil rightslabor & employment

In State v. R.M.M., defendant R.M.M. applied under R.C. 2953.32 to seal records from six prior Franklin County convictions (primarily forgery and receiving stolen property felonies from 1982 to 2004). The state objected, arguing he was ineligible because he had more than five felony convictions. The trial court denied the application after a hearing. The Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed, ruling that R.M.M. did not qualify as an "eligible offender" under R.C. 2953.31(A)(1)(a) or (b) due to his multiple convictions and the inapplicability of the statute's merger provisions. The court held that this ineligibility deprived the trial court of jurisdiction to seal the records and that any lack of detailed findings in the denial entry was harmless because the reasoning was clear from the record.

criminal lawprocedure