Harwell v. Grafton Correctional Inst.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Harwell v. Grafton Correctional Inst., 2004-Ohio-2763.] IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO EARNEST HARWELL : Plaintiff : v. CASE NO. 2003-04961 Magistrate Steven A. Larson : MAGISTRATE DECISION GRAFTON CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION : : Defendant : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : {¶1} This case was tried before a magistrate of the court on March 11, 2004, at the Grafton Correctional Institution (GCI). Plaintiff brought this action against defendant alleging negligence. {¶2} At all times relevant hereto, plaintiff was an inmate in the custody and control of defendant pursuant to R.C. 5120.16. On December 16, 2002, plaintiff was transported to and from GCI and Columbus Medical Center (CMC) for a medical examination of his left shoulder. Prior to the trip, on October 23, 2002, Dr. A. Robinson, M.D., had issued an order to GCI staff to use flex cuffs during any transport of plaintiff due to his arthritis. (Defendant s Exhibit E.) Pursuant to this directive, plaintiff was restrained with flex cuffs instead of standard metal handcuffs during the December 16, 2002, trip. Plaintiff testified that he complained to correction officers (COs) about tightness and discomfort on both wrists throughout the trip, but that his complaints were ignored. As a result, plaintiff alleges that due to defendant s negligence he suffered swelling and abrasions to each wrist. {¶3} In order to prevail on a negligence claim, plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant owed him a duty, that it breached such duty, and that the breach proximately caused plaintiff s injuries. Strother v. Case No. 2003-04961 -2- MAGISTRATE DECISION Hutchinson (1981), 67 Ohio St.2d 282, 285. Ohio law imposes a duty of reasonable care upon the state to provide for its prisoners health, care and well-being. Clemets v. Heston (1985), 20 Ohio App.3d 132, 136. Therefore, defendant owed a duty of reasonable care to ensure that prescribed flex cuffs were properly applied to plaintiff s wrists. {¶4} Plaintiff testified that defendant breached its duty of reasonable care on several occasions due to excessive tightness of the flex cuffs. Specifically, plaintiff testified that he complained on numerous occasions to the transporting COs, a CO at CMC, a nurse at CMC, and additional staff at GCI upon his return. However, the testimony of the COs who participated in the transport confirms that whenever plaintiff complained, a CO responded by placing a finger in between the cuff and plaintiff s wrists to verify that the cuffs were not too tight. Furthermore, CO Phillip Simmons, who has been employed as a CO by defendant for 14 years, testified that plaintiff refused metal cuffs when they were offered to him after his medical examination at CMC. Additionally, inmate James Gwinn, who was transported along with plaintiff, testified that he also wore flex cuffs; that during his examination, he complained about the flex cuffs; and that subsequently he was given metal cuffs. CO Kenneth Evett, who has been employed by defendant for approximately 13 years, corroborated the testimony of CO Simmons and inmate Gwinn. CO Evett testified that he accompanied plaintiff during his medical examination and that plaintiff made no complaints to the examining physician. CO Evett also testified that plaintiff was offered and refused metal cuffs. Thus, upon review of the testimony and evidence presented, the court finds that defendant repeatedly checked the tightness of plaintiff s flex cuffs, and that defendant offered to replace plaintiff s flex cuffs with metal cuffs. Accordingly, the court concludes that plaintiff has failed to prove that defendant breached its duty of reasonable care. Case No. 2003-04961 {¶5} -3- MAGISTRATE DECISION Plaintiff also has failed to prove that the use of flex cuffs proximately caused any alleged injuries. CO Simmons testified that he noticed blisters on plaintiff s wrists, but he concluded that they were self-inflicted as a result of friction caused by excessive movement by plaintiff. Furthermore, CO Simmons testified that during the trip to CMC, plaintiff spent time turning his wrists in a manner which would create friction and cause blisters. Based on the evidence presented, plaintiff has failed to prove that excessive tightness of the flex cuffs caused any injuries. {¶6} In the final analysis, the evidence fails to establish that defendant breached any duty of care owed to plaintiff under the circumstances of this case or, in the alternative, that the alleged breach of duty proximately caused plaintiff s injuries. Accordingly, judgment is recommended for defendant. {¶7} 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: Richard F. Swope 6504 East Main Street Reynoldsburg, Ohio 43068-2268 David M. Geiger Attorney for Plaintiff Attorney for Defendant Case No. 2003-04961 -4- Assistant Attorney General 150 East Gay Street, 23rd Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215-3130 ML/cmd Filed May 11, 2004 To S.C. reporter May 28, 2004 MAGISTRATE DECISION
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.
