Schooley v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[Cite as Schooley v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2005-Ohio-3950.] IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO www.cco.state.oh.us WILLIAM SCHOOLEY : Plaintiff : v. : CASE NO. 2004-08405 Judge J. Craig Wright Magistrate Steven A. Larson : DECISION OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION : Defendant : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : {¶ 1} On June 8, 2005, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Civ.R. 56. a response. On June 17, 2005, plaintiff filed The case is now before the court for a non-oral hearing on the motion for summary judgment. Civ.R. 56(C) and L.C.C.R. 4. {¶ 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 the Corrections Medical Center (CMC) at all times relevant to this action. R.C. 5120.16. In his complaint, plaintiff alleges that he underwent hernia surgery on April 30, 2003, at OSUMC; that as a result of the surgery plaintiff developed a complication known as an incarcerated bowel; and that he had to undergo a second surgery on May 5, 2003. {¶ 5} In order to prevail on a claim of medical malpractice or professional negligence, 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. 127. Bruni v. Tatsumi (1976), 46 Ohio St.2d 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 relies on the affidavits of Drs. Charles Cook and Martin Akusoba to establish the absence of genuine issues of material fact and to demonstrate that defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. {¶ 7} Dr. Cook s affidavit provides in relevant part: {¶ 8} *** {¶ 9} 4. That in 2003 there was a contract between the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction pursuant to which affiant provided medical services to prisoners, including William Schooley; {¶ 10} *** {¶ 11} 6. That, according to OSUMC records, William Schooley underwent surgery on April 30, 2003, and was transferred to the care of the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. {¶ 12} 7. That on May 4, 2003, William Schooley returned to the OSUMC Emergency Department for a failed hernia repair and incarcerated bowel; {¶ 13} 8. That on May 5, 2003, affiant reoperated on William Schooley and found an incarcerated bowel due to a failed hernia repair. It was repaired, and Mr. Schooley s abdomen was closed using goretex mesh. A copy of the operative notes of that surgery on May 5, 2003 is attached; {¶ 14} 9. That hernia repair failure and incarcerated bowel are potential complications of hernia surgery of the type performed by Dr. Gowdamarajan in April 2003, which can and do occur in the patients even though the surgeon has complied with all applicable standards of medical care. {¶ 15} 10. That it did not appear to affiant that this complication following Dr. Gowdamarajan s surgery of April 30, 2003, was the Gowdamarajan, result or a of any failure negligence on his on the to comply part part of Dr. with the applicable standards of medical and surgical care. {¶ 16} ***. {¶ 17} Dr. Akusoba s affidavit provides in relevant part: {¶ 18} *** {¶ 19} 3. Affiant has That affiant is the Chief Medical Officer at CMC. personal knowledge of inmate William Schooley s medical chart and his care and treatment. {¶ 20} 4. Mr. Schooley received the post operative care ordered by OSU following his surgery on April 30, 2003. {¶ 21} 5. Affiant signed orders consistent with OSU s discharge instruction on April 30, 2003. See attached. Tylenol #3 was ordered rather than Percocet because Percocet is a controlled substance and CMC does not use it. {¶ 22} 6. The nursing staff completed a comprehensive assessment of Mr. Schooley on May 1, 2003. See attached. His vital signs were stable. {¶ 23} 7. The nursing Schooley on 5/2/03 and 5/3/03. {¶ 24} 8. staff continued to monitor Mr. See attached. On [5/4/03], Mr. Schooley was transported back to OSU for follow-up surgery. {¶ 25} 9. Mr. Schooley was at all times transported to OSU for surgery in a timely fashion as scheduled by OSU. {¶ 26} that he On April 6, 2005, plaintiff filed notice with the court has not retained an expert witness for this case. Plaintiff s June 17, 2005, memorandum in opposition alleges that defendant did not provide plaintiff with adequate medical care after his initial surgery on April 30, 2003. However, plaintiff did not submit his own affidavit or any other admissible evidence in support of these claims. {¶ 27} In light of the standard of review, the court finds that the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn from the evidence is that defendant did not breach the medical and surgical standard of care owed to plaintiff and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. {¶ 28} The motion for summary judgment shall be granted. Plaintiff s May 23, 2005, motion for an order to convey him to the trial is DENIED as moot as is defendant s June 27, 2005, motion for an expedited ruling on it s motion for summary judgment. COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO www.cco.state.oh.us WILLIAM SCHOOLEY : Plaintiff : v. : CASE NO. 2004-08405 Judge J. Craig Wright Magistrate Steven A. Larson OHIO DEPARTMENT OF : JUDGMENT ENTRY REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION 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 GRANTED and judgment is rendered in favor of defendant. Court costs are assessed against plaintiff. The clerk shall serve upon all parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. ________________________________ J. CRAIG WRIGHT Judge Entry cc: William Schooley, #400-856 1990 Harmon Avenue Columbus, Ohio 43223 Plaintiff, Pro se Susan M. Sullivan Assistant Attorney General 150 East Gay Street, 23rd Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215-3130 Attorney for Defendant AS/LP/mdw Filed July 12, 2005 To S.C. reporter August 3, 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.