Dehler v. Trumbull Correctional Inst.

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Dehler v. Trumbull Correctional Inst., 2005-Ohio-4454.] IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO www.cco.state.oh.us LAMBERT F. DEHLER : Plaintiff : v. CASE NO. 2003-12361 Judge J. Craig Wright Magistrate Steven A. Larson : TRUMBULL CORRECTIONAL : MAGISTRATE DECISION INSTITUTION, et al. Defendants : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : {¶ 1} Plaintiff brought this action against defendants alleging negligence, medical malpractice, and retaliation. The issues of liability and damages were bifurcated and the case proceeded to trial on the issue of liability. At all times relevant to this action, plaintiff was an inmate in the custody and control of defendants pursuant to R.C. 5120.16. At trial, the sole testimony presented was that of plaintiff. {¶ 2} Plaintiff contends that Trumbull Correctional Institution (TCI) nurses committed nursing malpractice when refilling his prescriptions during sick call and reviewing his blood test results. {¶ 3} To establish a claim of medical [nursing] 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. (1996), 116 Ohio App.3d 595; citing Bruni v. Tatsumi (1976), 46 Ohio St.2d 127. [E]xpert testimony is necessary to establish the prevailing standard of care where the professional skills and Case No. 2003-12361 -2- MAGISTRATE DECISION judgement of a nurse are alleged to be deficient. Ramage, et al. v. Central Ohio Emergency Services, Inc., et al., 64 Ohio St.3d 97, 1992-Ohio-109. {¶ 4} Plaintiff has failed to provide any evidence other than his own testimony in support of his claim that TCI nurses were negligent in reviewing his laboratory results. present the testimony of a nursing expert. acknowledged that prescriptions. TCI physicians, not Plaintiff did not Furthermore, plaintiff the nurses, wrote his In short, upon review of the testimony and evidence presented at trial, plaintiff has failed to prove that TCI nurses engaged in any nursing malpractice. {¶ 5} Plaintiff also asserts that he received negligent medical treatment when hemorrhoids. doctors at Plaintiff substantiating his claim. TCI did presented not remove no his expert internal testimony Neither can the court conclude that such a determination is within a lay person s common knowledge and experience. Bruni, supra, at 130. {¶ 6} Plaintiff also maintains that defendants violated his rights by failing to provide meals that included fresh fruits, vegetables, and low-fat milk and by failing to provide new scales for inmates to weigh themselves. Additionally, plaintiff alleges that defendants policy of requiring him to pay a $3 co-pay to refill prescriptions, visit sick call, and review blood test results unfairly denies him access to medical care. {¶ 7} Inmate complaints regarding the conditions of confinement are treated U.S.Code. as claims arising under Section 1983, Title 42, State ex rel. Carter v. Schotten, 70 Ohio St.3d 89, 91, 1994-Ohio-37. Clearly, claims against the state under Section 1983, Title 42, U.S.Code, may not be brought in the Court of Claims Case No. 2003-12361 -3- MAGISTRATE DECISION because the state is not a person within the meaning of Section 1983. See, e.g., Jett v. Dallas Indep. School Dist. (1989), 491 U.S. 701; Burkey v. Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (1988), 38 Ohio App.3d 170; White v. Chillicothe Correctional Institution (Dec. 29, 1992), Tenth Dist. No. 92AP-1230. {¶ 8} Plaintiff asserts that the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction s inspectors have retaliated against him by responding to his grievances in an untimely manner and that he has been retaliated against for filing the instant claim. consequence, he requests an order from this court As a requiring defendants to transfer him to Toledo Correctional Institution. {¶ 9} To the extent that plaintiff alleges that he was retaliated against, the Tenth District Court of Appeals has held that claims for retaliation are to be treated as an action for alleged violations of constitutional rights under Section 1983, Title 42, U.S.Code. See Deavors v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. (May 20, 1999), Franklin App. No. 98AP-1105. This court is without jurisdiction to determine such claims. {¶ 10} Prison administrators are provided wide-ranging deference in the adoption and execution of policies and practices that in their judgment are needed to preserve internal order and discipline and to maintain institutional security. Wolfish (1979), 441 U.S. 520, 547. & Corr. (1995), 75 Ohio Misc.2d 44. Bell v. Holbert v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. Therefore, this court has no authority to order plaintiff s transfer to Toledo Correctional Institution. {¶ 11} For the foregoing reasons, the court concludes that plaintiff has failed to prove any of his claims by a preponderance Case No. 2003-12361 of the evidence. -4- MAGISTRATE DECISION Accordingly, judgment is recommended in favor of defendants. {¶ 12} A party may file written objections to the magistrate s decision within 14 days of the filing of the decision. A party shall not assign as error on appeal the court s adoption of any finding or conclusion of law contained in the magistrate s decision unless the party timely and specifically objects to that finding or conclusion as required by Civ.R. 53(E)(3). ________________________________ STEVEN A. LARSON Magistrate Entry cc: Lambert F. Dehler, #273-819 5701 Burnett Road P.O. Box 901 Leavittsburg, Ohio 44430-0901 Plaintiff, Pro se James P. Dinsmore Assistant Attorney General 150 East Gay Street, 23rd Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215-3130 Attorney for Defendant LM/mdw Filed August 1, 2005 To S.C. reporter August 29, 2005

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.