Patrick M. McGrath

This case involves students at Kent State University who filed a class action alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment after the university switched all classes to remote learning and restricted campus access starting in March 2020 due to COVID-19, without refunding tuition or mandatory fees paid for in-person instruction and services. The trial court certified a class of undergraduate students who paid instructional, general, or non-resident fees for the Spring 2020 semester. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the certification, ruling that the trial court did not perform the required rigorous analysis of Civ.R. 23 factors such as commonality and predominance. The appellate court found that the trial court improperly assumed injury from the shift to remote learning without assessing whether common evidence could establish economic harm for all class members or whether individualized inquiries would predominate, and it remanded for further proceedings.

procedure

This case arose from a paternity action filed by M.H. regarding minor child S.K., in which the child's paternal grandmother E.H. sought to be joined as a party and obtain court-ordered companionship time while M.H. was incarcerated. The trial court granted E.H. party status and visitation rights after a magistrate's hearing that considered testimony on the child's best interests, family relationships, and E.H.'s health. On appeal by the child's mother B.K., the Tenth District Court of Appeals sustained the challenge to the visitation order, finding error in the trial court's handling of grandparent companionship time under applicable Ohio statutes, while upholding the notices required by R.C. 3109.051 and other rulings. The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for a new determination on the visitation issue.

family law

The case involved two African-American employees of the Ohio Department of Youth Services alleging racial discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation under R.C. Chapter 4112 based on incidents at a shared IT help desk with employees from the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, including issues with overtime, leave approvals, and eventual involuntary disability separations. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Court of Claims' grant of summary judgment to the defendants. The court applied the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework and held that, even assuming plaintiffs could establish a prima facie case, they failed to offer evidence showing the defendants' legitimate non-discriminatory reasons were pretext for discrimination.

civil rightslabor & employment

The case involved plaintiff Kevin Tharp suing Hillcrest Baptist Church and Pastor Timothy Lee for defamation, libel, slander, invasion of privacy, false-light invasion of privacy, breach of confidentiality, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, clergy malpractice, and related claims. The suit stemmed from a 2017 private church meeting where Pastor Lee confronted Tharp about his admitted past sexual molestation of multiple minors, including a church attendee, after the victim recognized him decades later. The trial court granted the defendants' partial motion for judgment on the pleadings and motion for summary judgment on all remaining claims. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the church's statements were protected by qualified privilege without evidence of actual malice, that the clergy malpractice claim was redundant with other tort claims, and that no viable causes of action existed under the facts.

torts & liabilityreligious liberty

The case involved a surviving spouse seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the Industrial Commission of Ohio to grant a scheduled loss of use award for her husband's total loss of use of his arms, legs, sight, and hearing following a fatal workplace accident where he was pinned under machinery, leading to cardiac arrest and anoxic brain injury. The Commission denied the award for the sensory losses, finding they resulted from brain damage rather than direct injury to the organs themselves. The court denied the writ, determining that the Commission's decision was supported by evidence, including medical opinions attributing the losses to the brain's inability to process signals due to anoxic injury, consistent with prior precedent that such losses are not compensable under the relevant statute without direct organ injury.

labor & employment

In Schultz v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., contract employees Nancy Schultz and Andrea Hawley sued the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction for negligence and loss of consortium, alleging they suffered injuries from exposure to unknown toxic fumes while working in the pharmacy at the Ohio Reformatory for Women on February 4, 2010. After a bench trial, a magistrate in the Court of Claims found in favor of the defendant, determining that the plaintiffs had not established negligence or causation through sufficient evidence, including expert testimony on the unidentified substance. The Court of Claims overruled the plaintiffs' objections to the magistrate's decision, and the Tenth Appellate District affirmed the judgment, concluding that the trier of fact properly weighed the evidence and credibility of witnesses.

torts & liability

In Wiltz v. Ohio State Univ. Wexner Med. Ctr., plaintiff Cassandra Wiltz, proceeding pro se, refiled a complaint in the Ohio Court of Claims against the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center alleging that from 2016 to 2017 the hospital and its staff failed to properly diagnose and treat her cancer and other conditions, withheld her medical records, and made false entries in her file that prevented her from obtaining care elsewhere. The prior complaint, filed in 2019, had been dismissed without prejudice in February 2020 for lack of an affidavit of merit under Civ.R. 10(D)(2). The Court of Claims granted the hospital's motion to dismiss the refiled July 2021 complaint, and the Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the action was untimely under the one-year limit of R.C. 2305.19 (the savings statute) after the 2020 dismissal and that the plaintiff's recharacterized "ordinary negligence" claims for withholding records were in fact medical claims requiring an affidavit of merit. The court rejected arguments that COVID-related tolling extended the deadline and found no procedural error in the dismissal process.

healthcareproceduretorts & liability

In this case, petitioner Chris M. Garcia sought a writ of habeas corpus to compel his release from custody after a bondsman surrendered his $750,000 surety bond under R.C. 2937.40, leading to his arrest and detention without a new bond being set. The magistrate recommended dismissing the petition and denying partial summary judgment, and the court of appeals adopted that recommendation over the petitioner's objections. The court held that under Crim.R. 46(E), conditions of release do not continue after a surety's discharge application, giving the trial court discretion to revoke bond without setting a new one, and that any due process claims or failures to follow R.C. 2937.222 procedures were not cognizable in habeas corpus because an adequate remedy existed via direct appeal.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves an appeal by mother K.M. from a Franklin County juvenile court judgment granting permanent custody of her daughter B.T. (born 2018) to Franklin County Children Services. B.T. had been removed from parental custody shortly after birth due to serious injuries including bilateral skull fractures and brain swelling, with parents providing inconsistent explanations; the child was adjudicated abused and remained in agency custody with placement at paternal grandparents. The agency moved for permanent custody after the mother failed to substantially complete her case plan, including drug screens, mental health counseling, consistent visitation, and attending the child's medical appointments despite B.T.'s ongoing high medical and developmental needs. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that competent, credible evidence supported the trial court's findings under R.C. 2151.414 that permanent custody was in the child's best interest, including the length of agency involvement, parental non-compliance, and the child's need for a legally secure permanent placement.

family law

The case concerned plaintiff Bonnie Dalrymple's claims against the City of Westerville and several city officials and entities after she inquired about purchasing commercial property at 30 E. College Ave. and potential grant funding through the Westerville Industry and Commerce Corporation for renovations. Dalrymple alleged issues with code enforcement information, grant eligibility representations, and related conduct, bringing claims including fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and promissory estoppel. The Franklin County Court of Common Pleas granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding no genuine issues of material fact on the claims and that the city was performing governmental functions. The Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the record supported dismissal on immunity and evidentiary grounds.

propertybusiness & regulatorytorts & liability

The case concerned defendant Rogelio Velez, who was indicted on a fifth-degree felony count of harassment with a bodily substance and later found incompetent to stand trial. The trial court ordered him to undergo treatment at a behavioral healthcare facility and, after a hearing on an application for involuntary medication, authorized forced administration of psychotropic drugs to restore competency. On appeal, the defendant argued the trial court failed to make sufficient evidence-based findings under the four-factor test from Sell v. United States. The Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed the order, holding that the record supported the necessary conclusions that medication was substantially likely to restore competency, was necessary to further government interests, had no less intrusive alternatives, and was medically appropriate based on the treating psychiatrist's testimony and stipulated report.

criminal lawprocedurehealthcare

In State v. Draughon, the defendant appealed the trial court's denial of his motions seeking to correct or vacate portions of his 1997 sentence for convictions including aggravated burglary, robbery, rape, and kidnapping, which carried enhancements from repeat violent offender and sexually violent predator specifications. The defendant argued that the sentence on the rape count was improperly enhanced because his prior conviction could not support the sexually violent predator specification. The appellate court affirmed the denial of the motions, holding that the challenges were barred by res judicata as the same issues had been raised and rejected in multiple prior appeals.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Graggs, defendant John Q. Graggs appealed the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas's denial of his motion for leave to file a motion for new trial following his 2009 convictions for aggravated robbery, kidnapping, and aggravated murder arising from the 2008 shooting death of Fred Brock during a drug-related incident at an apartment. The Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling, concluding that the affidavits offered as newly discovered evidence—concerning drug users at the apartment and latex gloves associated with drug activity—were cumulative to arguments and evidence available at trial rather than newly discovered. The court further held that the defendant failed to show by clear and convincing evidence he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the evidence earlier, and found no abuse of discretion in denying the motion without an evidentiary hearing.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved relator Dana Cartwright filing a mandamus action against the Ohio Adult Parole Board seeking to vacate his parole revocation and obtain a new hearing, claiming violations of due process due to inadequate notice of the violation and insufficient evidence supporting the revocation decision. The court had previously remanded the case after finding the complaint stated a potential claim on the evidence issue, and following summary judgment proceedings and review of the revocation hearing audio, the magistrate recommended denial of the writ. The court adopted that recommendation, holding that the evidence met the preponderance standard applicable to parole revocations, that the board properly considered witness credibility, and that relator had received adequate notice since he admitted the charged conduct involving unwanted sexual contact. The court therefore denied the requested writ of mandamus.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a student loan collection action in which National Collegiate Student Loan Trust-1 sued Kimberly Payne for default on a loan originally issued in 2002, resulting in a 2018 trial court judgment in favor of the plaintiff after a bench trial. Payne later moved under Ohio Civ.R. 60(B)(3) and (5) to set aside the judgment, alleging that the plaintiff's witness had provided false testimony at trial in light of a 2017 CFPB consent order against the loan servicer concerning inaccurate affidavits. The trial court denied the motion, finding insufficient evidence of fraud or misconduct. On appeal, the Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Payne failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that the judgment was obtained through fraud or that any alleged false testimony constituted fraud on the court, and that the movant need not reach the meritorious-defense prong once relief under Civ.R. 60(B) is not established.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved a worker injured on a public street while unloading a wheelchair client from a bus as a bus attendant for Summit County, who sought a writ of mandamus to order the Industrial Commission to vacate its finding that the employer did not violate specific safety requirements under Ohio Adm.Code 4123:1-5-13(C)(7) and 4123:1-5-14(G)(1). The Tenth District Court of Appeals denied the writ after adopting the magistrate's decision. The core reasoning was that those safety rules for motor vehicles and equipment apply only within enclosed work areas under the employer's control, not on public roadways, consistent with precedent limiting their scope.

labor & employmentprocedure

In this case, inmate Jason Skaggs sued the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, alleging that prison staff improperly discontinued his prescribed seizure medications starting in 2016, which led to increased seizures, and that he suffered wrist injuries from excessive force during handcuffing. The Court of Claims ruled in favor of the department after a trial, finding the claims time-barred, and the Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment. The core reasoning was that the one-year statute of limitations for the medical and personal injury claims had expired by the time Skaggs filed his 2019 complaint, as the key events occurred in early 2016. The court also noted that expert testimony would have been required to prove any medical negligence claim even if timely filed.

criminal lawhealthcaretorts & liability

The case involved Leslye A. Sanderlin, a former music teacher and member of the State Teachers Retirement System (STRS), who filed an original action seeking a writ of mandamus to compel STRS and its board to reinstate disability benefits that had been terminated. The benefits had initially been granted in 2002 based on psychiatric conditions including depression and exhaustion but were later ended following a determination that she was no longer permanently disabled from her teaching duties. The court adopted the magistrate's decision and denied the writ. It concluded that some evidence supported the board's finding of no ongoing permanent disability, meaning the board had not abused its discretion in terminating the benefits.

labor & employment

The case involved a wrongful death and negligence lawsuit filed by James Fritz Schafer against the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) after his wife, Victoria Schafer, was fatally struck by a wooden log rolled off a cliff by third parties at Hocking Hills State Park in 2019. The complaint alleged that ODNR negligently left stacked logs accessible near trails and a popular area during a construction project without restricting access or warning visitors. The Court of Claims granted ODNR's motion to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), and the Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Schafer was a recreational user of the park premises under R.C. 1533.181 and that the injury arose from the condition of the premises, triggering statutory immunity even if ODNR created or failed to mitigate a hazard. The court reasoned that the recreational user statute provides broad protection to landowners who allow free public access, precluding liability for conditions on the land absent a charge for entry.

torts & liabilityproperty

This case involved a medical malpractice claim brought by plaintiff Harry Bernard against defendant Dr. Michael A. Wodarcyk after treatment for a kidney stone in early 2016, with the plaintiff filing suit in October 2017. The trial court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, ruling that the one-year statute of limitations under R.C. 2305.113 had expired and that the plaintiff had not timely opposed the motion or provided evidence that a 180-day notice letter had been received by the defendant. On appeal, the Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that without timely filed evidence showing receipt of the notice letter, there was no genuine issue of material fact regarding tolling of the limitations period, and the trial court's decision was proper under Civ.R. 56.

torts & liabilityprocedurehealthcare