Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A three-judge panel convicted Lamont Hunter for the aggravated murder and rape of a three-year-old and child endangerment. The panel sentenced Hunter to death based on two death-penalty specifications: aggravated murder while committing or attempting to commit rape and aggravated murder of a child under the age of thirteen. The Supreme Court affirmed Hunter's convictions and sentence of death, holding (1) Hunter did not meet his burden of demonstrating that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance; (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence that Hunter had previously abused the child; (3) the panel did not create a miscarriage of justice in convicting Hunter of all counts and specifications; (4) the panel did not err in denying multiple defense motions; (5) the panel did not err in sentencing Hunter to consecutive sentences for his noncapital offenses in violation of his constitutional rights; and (6) the aggravating factors clearly outweighed any mitigating factors beyond a reasonable doubt, and the penalty imposed in this case was appropriate and proportionate when compared to death sentences approved for other rape-murders. View "State v. Hunter" on Justia Law

Employee was injured in an industrial accident in 1987. The last injury-related bill submitted to either self-insured Employer or its third-party administrator (collectively, Employer) was paid in 1997. In 2008, Employee asked Employer to authorize further treatment. Employer denied the request, relying on former Ohio Rev. Code 4123.52, under which claim inactivity in excess of ten years permanently closed a worker's compensation claim. In an effort to toll the statute, Employee revived an issue relating to a 1998 doctor's visit and requested a hearing on the payment of that outstanding bill. An Industrial Commission staff hearing officer ordered Employer to pay the outstanding bill. The court of appeals vacated the decision and directed the Commission to issue a new order denying payment of the bill. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Commission abused its discretion in ordering the bill to be paid because the visit related to a low-back condition that was not allowed in Employee's claim and there was no evidence establishing a potential connection between Employee's 1987 injury and his 1998 back symptoms. View "State ex rel. Sears Roebuck & Co. v. Indus. Comm'n" on Justia Law

After Appellant Jermaine McKinney was convicted and sentenced in a criminal case, Appellant petitioned for writs of mandamus and procendendo to compel Appellee, a county court of common pleas judge, to issue a final, appealable order in his criminal case. The court of appeals dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the judge's sentencing entry in the criminal case fully complied with Ohio. R. Crim. P. 32(C) by including the findings of the jury upon which Appellant's convictions were based, the sentence, the signature of the judge, and the clerk's time stamp; and (2) Appellant had an adequate remedy by appeal to raise the claim that the judge erred in his sentencing entry. View "State ex rel. McKinney v. McKay" on Justia Law

Appellant David Untied petitioned for a writ of prohibition to prevent the judge of the court of common pleas from proceeding with a hearing on an alleged violation of community control and a writ of mandamus to compel the court of common pleas clerk to date-stamp and time-stamp all documents filed with the court. The court of appeals held that Untied was not entitled to the requested extraordinary relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the judge was authorized to conduct proceedings on the alleged community-control violations even though they were conducted after the expiration of the term of community control because the notice of violations was filed before Untied's community control expired; and (2) the documents filed with the court were all stamped with the date of filing in accordance with the pertinent provisions. View "State ex rel. Untied v. Ellwood" on Justia Law

Patient filed an action seeking recovery for injuries following a medical procedure Doctor performed on him allegedly without his informed consent. The trial court granted a directed verdict in favor of Doctor. The district court reversed. At issue on appeal was whether a claimant must present expert testimony on each element of the cause of action for failure to obtain informed consent to establish a prima facie case. The Supreme Court reversed the appellate court and reinstated the verdict of the trial court, holding (1) expert medical testimony is required to establish both the material risks and dangers involved with a medical procedure and that an undisclosed risk or danger actually materialized and proximately caused injury to the patient; (2) if a patient fails to present medical expert testimony that it is more likely than not that an undisclosed risk of a surgical procedure actually materialized and proximately caused injury, then a trial court may properly grant a directed verdict; and (3) because there was no evidence to support each element of Patient's informed-consent claim in this case, the trial court properly directed a verdict. View "White v. Leimbach" on Justia Law

Appellant suffered an industrial injury and never returned to any type of employment. Appellant filed for permanent total disability compensation (PTD) six years later. The Industrial Commission of Ohio denied Appellant's application in an order that emphasized Appellant's refusal to participate in vocational rehabilitation. Appellant filed a complaint in mandamus in the court of appeals, alleging that the Commission had abused its discretion in denying PTD. The court of appeals concluded that the Commission did not abuse its discretion in deciding to hold Appellant accountable for his failure to participate in vocational rehabilitation when there was no evidence that he would not benefit from such services. The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that (1) contrary to Appellant's suggestion, illiterate persons are neither unemployable nor, once injured, inherently permanently and totally disabled; and (2) Appellant was medically capable of sustained remunerative employment, so his rehabilitation potential was germane to the analysis. View "State ex rel. Gonzales v. Morgan" on Justia Law

Relators, owners of land located downstream from the western spillway of Grand Lake St. Marys, petitioned for a writ of mandamus to compel Respondents, the Ohio Department of Natural Resources and its director, to initiate appropriation proceedings for the physical taking of their property resulting from flooding caused by a spillway constructed by Respondents and the state's lake-level-management practices. Respondents contended that Relators' claim was time-barred by Ohio Rev. Code 2305.09(E). The Supreme Court granted the writ, holding (1) based on the Court’s precedent, Relators’ mandamus claim was not barred by the four-year statute of limitations in R.C. 2305.09(E) because Respondents’ ongoing control tolled the running of the limitations period; (2) relators in mandamus cases must prove their entitlement to the writ by clear and convincing evidence; and (3) Relators in this case established by clear and convincing evidence that Respondents, by their actions, effected a taking of at least some of Relators' property. View "State ex rel. Doner v. Zody" on Justia Law

Employee suffered an industrial injury and received surgery on his right shoulder, after which Employee returned to work for self-insured Employer. Employee experienced renewed shoulder complaints four years later and asked Employer to add new shoulder conditions to Employee's workers' compensation claim and authorize surgery to correct them. Employer and the Industrial Commission denied Employee's request after finding that the proposed procedure was unrelated to the conditions allowed in Employee's workers' compensation claim. At issue on appeal was a doctor's report upon which the Commission based its decision. The court of appeals granted a limited writ in mandamus that ordered the Commission to reconsider the application after finding inconsistencies within the report. The Supreme Court reversed, concluding that none of the alleged inconsistencies noted in the doctor's report affected the viability of the doctor's opinion that further surgery was not reasonably related to the allowed conditions, and therefore, the report was evidence supporting the Commission's decision. View "State ex rel. George v. Indus. Comm'n" on Justia Law

Relator, Angela Dawson, requested a writ of mandamus to compel Respondent, a local school district, to provide her with access to (1) itemized invoices of law firms providing services to the district in matters pertaining to Dawson and her children, and (2) communications from the school district's insurance carrier identifying the district's legal representative and describing the liability and exposure of the district and insurance company related to a case filed against the district by Dawson on behalf of one of her children. The Supreme Court denied the writ, holding that the requested records were exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Act because the school district met its burden of establishing the applicability of the attorney-client privilege to the requested records. View "State ex rel. Dawson v. Bloom-Carroll Local Sch. Dist." on Justia Law

Patrick Donohoe died from injuries sustained in a workplace accident. His widow, Catherine, filed an application for additional workers' compensation benefits, claiming that Patrick's accident resulted from his employer's violation of specific safety requirements (VSSRs) governing the construction industry. The Industrial Commission of Ohio denied her application. The court of appeals vacated the order and returned the cause to the Commission for further consideration. Both Catherine and the employer appealed. At issue on appeal was (1) whether the Commission staff hearing officer's order, which could be interpreted in different ways, was deficient; and (2) whether the Commission erred by denying Catherine's application because there were no eyewitnesses to the accident. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) an order that can engender two viable, yet irreconcilable, interpretations is too ambiguous to withstand scrutiny; (2) an order that is potentially based on an erroneous belief that a VSSR cannot issue in the absence of eyewitnesses is clearly an abuse of discretion; and (3) therefore, the court of appeals was correct in returning the cause to the Commission for clarification and consideration of all the evidence. View "State ex rel. Donohoe v. Indus. Comm'n" on Justia Law