Hayes v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Hayes v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2005-Ohio-5751.] IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO RICHARD V. HAYES : Plaintiff : v. : CASE NO. 2005-03695-AD : MEMORANDUM DECISION OHIO DEPT. OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTIONS : Defendant : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : {¶ 1} On January 6, 2005, at approximately 7:00 p.m., plaintiff, Richard V. Hayes, an inmate incarcerated at defendant s Southern Ohio Correctional Facility ( SOCF ), complained about chest pain when he was receiving medication dispensed by an institution nurse. Plaintiff related he requested the SOCF employee nurse on duty, identified as K. Joyner, take his vital signs after making his complaint about chest pain. Plaintiff pointed out he was extremely concerned about his physical complaints due to the fact he suffers from a form of heart disease (calcifications in a coronary artery). Plaintiff asserted that Nurse Joyner refused to take his blood pressure and temperature after he made these requests and was ordered back to his housing without receiving any type of treatment, care, or testing in response to his initial physical complaint. Plaintiff stated he suffered chronic chest pains through the remainder of the night of January 6, 2005, and into the morning of January 7, 2005. Plaintiff explained he had previously underwent a CT Scan (October 18, 2004 or November 18, 2004) at Ohio State University Hospital and the scan revealed his coronary artery was blocked with calcified material. {¶ 2} Plaintiff contended he did not receive adequate or sufficient care from Nurse Joyner when he complained of chest pain on January 6, 2005. seeking to recoverable Plaintiff, consequently filed this complaint recover $2,500.00, due the to the alleged statutory inadequate maximum care. amount Plaintiff characterized his claim for injury suffered as continued chest pains through the night. Plaintiff did not assert defendant s acts or inactions caused or exacerbated the manifestations of his physical disability. Plaintiff claimed his pain was exacerbated because he did not receive any medication. {¶ 3} Defendant Joyner of acknowledged experiencing chest plaintiff pain complained while Nurse to Nurse Joyner was administering medications during pill call on January 6, 2005. After making a cursory assessment, Nurse Joyner advised plaintiff to sign up for sick call or notify an on duty corrections officer if he experienced additional physical complaints. Defendant insisted plaintiff s physical condition was adequately assessed by Nurse Joyner. Defendant asserted plaintiff failed to prove he received inadequate medical attention on January 6, 2005. {¶ 4} Defendant explained plaintiff received treatment and testing on multiple occasions between September 2004 and June 2005 for complaints of chest pain. Defendant noted plaintiff was give a CT Scan on October 18, 2004, due to complaints of chest pain. This procedure, according to defendant, did not reveal any cardiac problems. Subsequently, plaintiff had further testing including a stress echo, electrocardiogram, an exercise stress, and a CT angiogram. Defendant maintained all plaintiff had normal cardiac function. these tests indicated Additionally, plaintiff was examined and treated by a cardiologist at the Ohio State University Hospital. Defendant related the attending cardiologist believed plaintiff s chest pain was not cardiac in nature. Defendant contended plaintiff has failed to produce sufficient evidence to prove he received substandard nurse care on January 6, 2005. Furthermore, defendant contended plaintiff failed to prove he suffered any injury on January 6, 2005, as a result of any act or omission on the part of Nurse Joyner. {¶ 5} Plaintiff again argued he did not receive adequate medical attention on January 6, 2005 and he suffered pain and distress as a result of having his physical complaints ignored.1 Plaintiff did not submit any evidence other than his own opinion to show he received inadequate nursing care on January 6, 2005. {¶ 6} In order for plaintiff to prevail upon his claim of negligence, he must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that defendant owned him a duty, that it breached that duty, and that the breach proximately caused his injuries. (1981), 67 Ohio St. 2d 282, 285. Strother v. Hutchinson The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that, [b]ecause nurses are persons of superior knowledge and skill, nurses must employ that degree of care and skill that a nurse practitioner of ordinary care, skill and diligence should employ in like circumstances. Whether a nurse has satisfied or breached the duty of care owed to the patient is determined by the applicable testimony. standard of conduct, which is proved by expert Berdyck v. Shinde, 66 Ohio St. 3d 573, 1993-Ohio-183, paragraph 3 of the syllabus. Since plaintiff, in the instant claim, has failed to produce the required evidence of expert testimony, his claim is denied. Plaintiff s opinion alone is insufficient. IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO 1 Plaintiff filed a response. RICHARD V. HAYES : Plaintiff : v. : CASE NO. 2005-03695-AD : ENTRY OF ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION OHIO DEPT. OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTIONS : Defendant : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : Having considered all the evidence in the claim file and, for the reasons set forth in the memorandum decision filed concurrently herewith, judgment is rendered in favor of defendant. are assessed against plaintiff. Court costs The clerk shall serve upon all parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. ________________________________ DANIEL R. BORCHERT Deputy Clerk Entry cc: Richard V. Hayes, #156-605 1728 State Rte. 728 Lucasville, Ohio 45699 Plaintiff, Pro se Gregory C. Trout, Chief Counsel Department of Rehabilitation and Correction 1050 Freeway Drive North Columbus, Ohio 43229 For Defendant RDK/laa 9/27 Filed 10/7/05 Sent to S.C. reporter 10/27/05
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.
