Calloway v. Marion Correctional Inst.

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Calloway v. Marion Correctional Inst., 2006-Ohio-357.] IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO TYRONE CALLOWAY : Plaintiff : v. : CASE NO. 2005-07135-AD : MEMORANDUM DECISION MARION CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION : Defendant : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : {¶ 1} Plaintiff, Tyrone Calloway, an inmate incarcerated at defendant, Marion Correctional Institution ( MCI ), stated he suffered a severe asthma attack and blacked out while working in the MCI diary barn on May 3, 2005. Plaintiff related that when he blacked out he fell unconscious to the diary barn floor causing injury to his head, back, and right arm. Plaintiff explained he was assigned to work in the MCI diary barn despite the fact he is asthmatic and working in the barn environment could exacerbate asthma related respiratory problems. Although plaintiff maintained he complained to MCI personnel about his work assignment due to health concerns, he did not provide any documentation regarding any complaints about work assignments. Furthermore, plaintiff did not submit any evidence showing he attempted to obtain any type of medical restriction for work assignments or was actually granted a medical restriction. Plaintiff did file this complaint seeking to recover $1,500.00 presumedly for pain and suffering associated with the stated injuries he professed he suffered on May 3, 2005. {¶ 2} Defendant acknowledged plaintiff informed MCI staff he had asthma when his work assignment was made. Defendant noted plaintiff was not medically restricted from working in the MCI dairy barn. No record of any medical restriction under plaintiff s name could be found. Defendant maintained plaintiff had an order to use an Albuterol inhaler as needed to treat his asthma. {¶ 3} Defendant confirmed plaintiff suffered an asthma attack on May 3, 2005, while working at the MCI dairy barn as a field gang worker. Defendant also confirmed plaintiff passed out, fell, and apparently suffered some injury to his head and arm. Immediately after suffering the asthma attack plaintiff was transported to the MCI infirmary where he remained through May 8, 2005 receiving treatment. Plaintiff s injuries were noted as redness on the back of his head and swelling around his right elbow and arm. Treatment for these injuries consisted of rest and the administration of analgesics. Plaintiff s physical injuries were minor. {¶ 4} Defendant denied any liability in this matter. Defendant contended plaintiff failed to prove his injury was proximately caused by any negligent act or omission on the part of MCI staff. Defendant asserted plaintiff failed to produce any evidence proving he did not receive proper care after sustaining his injuries. {¶ 5} In order to prevail, plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant owed him a duty, that defendant breached that duty, proximately caused his injuries. and that defendant s breach Armstrong v. Best Buy Company, Inc., 99 Ohio St. 3d 79, 91, 2003-Ohio-2573, citing Menifee v. Ohio Welding Products, Inc. (1984), 15 Ohio St. 3d 75, 77. Ohio law imposes a duty of reasonable care upon the state to provide for its prisoners health, care, and well-being. 20 Ohio App. 3d 132, 136. Clemets v. Heston (1985), Reasonable or ordinary care is that degree of caution and foresight which an ordinarily prudent person would employ in similar circumstances. Inc. (1965), 2 Ohio St. 2d 310. inmate safety. Smith v. United Properties, The state is not an insurer of See Williams v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. (1991), 61 Ohio Misc. 2d 699. {¶ 6} An inmate laborer, such as plaintiff, is not an employee of the state for purposes of R.C. Chapter 4113. Fondern v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. (1977), 51 Ohio App. 2d 180, 183-4. *** [W]here a prisoner also performs labor for the state, the duty owed by the state must be defined in the context of those additional factors which characterize the particular work performed. (1987), 42 Ohio App. 3d 204, 208. McCoy v. Engle To establish a prima facie case in a claim of this type, plaintiff must show he had a valid medical restriction regarding his work assignment and defendant ignored or refused to honor that restriction. See Tate v. Ruth (Sept. 8, 1995), Trumbull App. 94-T-5157, unreported. Plaintiff did not possess a work assignment medical restriction. Plaintiff has failed to prove his injury at the MCI dairy barn was attributable to any negligent act or omission on the part of defendant. Consequently, plaintiff s claim is denied. IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO TYRONE CALLOWAY : Plaintiff : v. : CASE NO. 2005-07135-AD : ENTRY OF ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION MARION CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION : 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: Tyrone Calloway, #482-569 P.O. Box 57 Marion, Ohio 43302 Plaintiff, Pro se Gregory C. Trout, Chief Counsel Department of Rehabilitation and Correction 1050 Freeway Drive North Columbus, Ohio 43229 For Defendant RDK/laa 1/10 Filed 1/18/06 Sent to S.C. reporter 1/27/06

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.