Martin v. Mansfield Correctional Inst.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Martin v. Mansfield Correctional Inst., 2005-Ohio-2544.] IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO www.cco.state.oh.us REGINALD WENDELL MARTIN : Plaintiff : v. : CASE NO. 2004-05180 Judge J. Craig Wright Magistrate Steven A. Larson : MAGISTRATE DECISION MANSFIELD CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION : Defendant : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : {¶ 1} Plaintiff brought this action against defendant alleging a claim of medical malpractice.1 The issues of liability and damages were bifurcated and the case proceeded to trial before a magistrate of the court on March 24, 2005, on the issue of liability. {¶ 2} At all times relevant to this action, plaintiff was an inmate in the custody and control of defendant pursuant to R.C. 5120.16. Plaintiff asserts that before he was incarcerated at Mansfield Correctional Institution (ManCI), he had been diagnosed with a sleep disorder known as narcolepsy, and that defendant s medical staff failed to adequately treat his condition during his incarceration, which ended in June 2004. Plaintiff asserts that he received inadequate medical care in that he was denied prescription medication for narcolepsy; that he was not provided a prescribed, restricted-calorie diet to manage his diabetes; that he suffered from a diabetic coma for three and one-half days as a result of 1 On March 1, 2005, this court granted defendant s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff s claims of psychiatric malpractice, wrongful transfer, and retaliation. Case No. 2004-05180 -2- MAGISTRATE DECISION having to eat a high-calorie diet; and that he was subjected to medical experimentation by defendant s medical staff. {¶ 3} Upon cross-examination, plaintiff explained that he had suffered head trauma before being incarcerated which led to sleep disorders and diabetes. Plaintiff admitted that, while in defendant s custody, defendant s medical staff monitored his blood sugar levels periodically; administered insulin; counseled him regarding proper nutrition for his diabetes; and sent him for medical consultation for sleep problems. Plaintiff further stated that defendant provided him with medical care, but that the care was inadequate. {¶ 4} In order for plaintiff to prevail upon his claim of negligence, he must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant owed him a duty, that it breached that duty, and that the breach proximately caused his injuries. Strother v. Hutchinson (1981), 67 Ohio St.2d 282, 285. {¶ 5} As this court stated in its decision regarding defendant s motion for summary judgment: Generally, in order to prevail on a claim of medical malpractice, the appropriate standard of care must be proven by expert testimony. St.2d 127, 130. An exception Bruni v. Tatsumi (1976), 46 Ohio to the requirement of expert testimony exists where the lack of skill or care of the physician is so apparent it is within the comprehension of the lay person s common knowledge superfluous. Id. and experience, making expert testimony Here, plaintiff claims that prescribed medical treatment was not administered by defendant s medical staff. As such, plaintiff arguably presents a claim that may be proven even in the absence of expert testimony. Bruni, supra, at 130-132. Case No. 2004-05180 -3- MAGISTRATE DECISION Martin v. Mansfield Corr. Inst. (Mar. 1, 2005), Court of Claims No. 2004-05180, p. 3. {¶ 6} Plaintiff did not present any evidence at trial to substantiate his claim that prescribed treatment was not provided to him. Plaintiff also failed to present the testimony of any medical expert to support his medical malpractice claim; rather, the sole testimony presented was that of plaintiff. {¶ 7} Upon review of the testimony and evidence presented at trial, the court finds that plaintiff has failed to prove his claim of medical malpractice by a preponderance of the evidence. Plaintiff presented no expert medical testimony regarding the appropriate standard of care. Although plaintiff testified that he was given drugs such as Prozac while in defendant s custody, the court cannot conclude that it is within a lay person s common knowledge and experience as to which prescription medications should have been prescribed to treat plaintiff s narcolepsy. Moreover, plaintiff presented no medical expert testimony regarding what type of diet is appropriate to manage his diabetes. Lastly, plaintiff failed to present any evidence to substantiate his claim of medical experimentation. {¶ 8} For the foregoing reasons, the court finds that plaintiff has failed to preponderance prove of the his claim evidence of and medical malpractice accordingly, by judgment a is recommended in favor of defendant. 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 Case No. 2004-05180 -4- MAGISTRATE 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: Reginald Wendell Martin 9626 Thorn Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44108 Plaintiff, Pro se Peter E. DeMarco Assistant Attorney General 150 East Gay Street, 23rd Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215-3130 Attorney for Defendant HTS/cmd Filed May 16, 2005 To S.C. reporter May 23, 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.
