[Cite as Likes v. Richland Correctional Inst., 2005-Ohio-725.]
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO
RONALD J. LIKES
:
Plaintiff
:
v.
:
CASE NO. 2004-03799
Judge Joseph T. Clark
Magistrate Steven A. Larson
:
DECISION
RICHLAND CORRECTIONAL
INSTITUTION
:
Defendant
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
{¶ 1} On December 17, 2004, defendant filed a motion for summary
judgment pursuant to Civ.R. 56(C).
On December 28, 2004, plaintiff
filed a response.
{¶ 2} Civ.R. 56(C) states, in part, as follows:
{¶ 3} “*** Summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the
pleadings,
depositions,
admissions,
affidavits,
answers
to
transcripts
interrogatories,
of
evidence,
and
written
written
stipulations of fact, if any, timely filed in the action, show that
there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the
moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
No
evidence or stipulation may be considered except as stated in this
rule.
A summary judgment shall not be rendered unless it appears
from the evidence or stipulation, and only from the evidence or
stipulation, that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion
and that conclusion is adverse to the party against whom the motion
for summary judgment is made, that party being entitled to have the
evidence or stipulation construed most strongly in the party’s
favor.
***”
See, also, Williams v. First United Church of Christ
(1974), 37 Ohio St.2d 150; Temple v. Wean United, Inc. (1977), 50
Ohio St.2d 317.
{¶ 4} It is not disputed that plaintiff was an inmate in the
custody
and
control
of
defendant
at
defendant’s
Richland
Correctional Institution at all times relevant to this action.
R.C. 5120.16.
Plaintiff alleges in his complaint that he was
deprived of necessary medical care, including diagnostic testing
and treatment, for chronic Hepatitis C, and that the lack of
testing and treatment resulted in physical harm and emotional
distress.
The crux of plaintiff’s complaint is that he sustained
personal injuries as a result of medical malpractice by defendant.
{¶ 5} In order to prevail on a claim of medical malpractice,
plaintiff must first prove: 1) the standard of care recognized by
the medical community; 2) the failure of defendant to meet the
requisite standard of care; and, 3) a direct causal connection
between the medically negligent act and the injury sustained.
Bruni v. Tatsumi (1976), 46 Ohio St.2d 127.
The appropriate
standard of care must be proven by expert testimony.
Id. at 130.
That expert testimony must explain what a medical professional of
ordinary skill, care, and diligence in the same medical specialty
would do in similar circumstances.
Id.
{¶ 6} In support of the motion for summary judgment, defendant
submitted the affidavit of Kenneth Williams, D.O., a medical
professional in defendant’s employ.
Williams’ affidavit provides
in relevant part:
{¶ 7} “***
{¶ 8} “I am familiar with the ailments of Ronald Likes and I am
his treating physician at the Richland Correctional Institution.
{¶ 9} “***
{¶ 10} “In response to his complaints of pain in conjunction
with prior documentation of injury, an eletromyogram [sic] nerve
conduction study was conducted on February 18, 2004 to determine if
any injuries or conditions remained present.
{¶ 11} “***
{¶ 12} “Ronald Likes’ complaints of back pain are treated as
they occur with non-addictive pain relievers.
{¶ 13} “Ronald Likes continues to be monitored for permanent
hepatitis C infection.
{¶ 14} “He is tested regularly to monitor infection levels.
Mr.
Likes initial test yielded a count of 862,000.
{¶ 15} “***
{¶ 16} “Since admission to my care his hepatitis C infection
levels have reduced 40 percent.
{¶ 17} “Liver tests conducted in October of 2004 and June of
2004 yielded predominately normal results with the exception of
slightly elevated ammonia levels.
{¶ 18} “On October 30, 2003 Ronald Likes’ ammonia level was 85.
Liver Tests on August 9, 2004 found Ronald Likes’ ammonia level to
be 42 which is a 50 percent improvement.
{¶ 19} “***
{¶ 20} “To be referred to a gastroenterologist, one must have
persistently elevated Alanine Aminotransferase Levels.
{¶ 21} “Mr. Likes has not been referred to a gastroenterologist
because his Alanine Aminotransferase Levels are normal.
{¶ 22} “His Alanine Aminotransferase Levels on July 1st, 2004
were 30.
The normal range is 10-35.
{¶ 23} “***
{¶ 24} “My care and treatment of Ronald Likes conformed to the
applicable standard of care, and was in no way negligent.”
{¶ 25} Here, defendant’s own expert has established the standard
of care for the treatment of plaintiff’s Hepatitis C.
Plaintiff
has not provided any conflicting expert testimony.
However, in
plaintiff’s affidavit he claims that the practices and procedures
described by Dr. Williams were not performed on him.
In fact,
plaintiff denies that he received any treatment, education or
mental health intervention after diagnosis of his disease.
{¶ 26} Upon review of the evidence submitted, and construing the
evidence most strongly in plaintiff’s favor, the court finds that
there is a genuine issue of material fact and defendant is not
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Accordingly, defendant’s
motion for summary judgment shall be denied.
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO
RONALD J. LIKES
:
Plaintiff
:
v.
:
CASE NO. 2004-03799
Judge Joseph T. Clark
Magistrate Steven A. Larson
:
JUDGMENT ENTRY
RICHLAND CORRECTIONAL
INSTITUTION
:
Defendant
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
A non-oral hearing was conducted in this case upon defendant’s
motion for summary judgment.
decision
filed
concurrently
For the reasons set forth in the
herewith,
defendant’s
motion
for
summary judgment is DENIED.
________________________________
JOSEPH T. CLARK
Judge
Entry cc:
Ronald J. Likes, #444-911
Richland Correctional Inst.
P.O. Box 8107
Mansfield, Ohio 44901
Plaintiff, Pro se
Susan M. Sullivan
Assistant Attorney General
150 East Gay Street, 23rd Floor
Columbus, Ohio 43215-3130
Attorney for Defendant
LP/AS/cmd
Filed January 12, 2005
To S.C. reporter February 23, 2005
