The Akron Legal News

Court rules prison was not at fault for inmates’ medical records release

JESSICA SHAMBAUGH
Special to the Legal News
Published: October 10, 2013

The Court of Claims of Ohio improperly granted summary judgment against inmates arguing their medical records were negligently released, according to a recent ruling from the 10th District Court of Appeals.

The three-judge appellate panel affirmed the judgment in part and reversed in part after finding the trial court improperly granted summary judgment after properly finding it lacked jurisdiction.

The appeal stemmed from an action filed by 10 inmates in the Mansfield Correctional Institution claiming their confidential medical records were negligently released to the general prison population.

Evidence showed the prison pharmacy kept a regular list of inmates who were HIV positive and a “chronic care list” for inmates with ailments that required ongoing treatment but who were not HIV positive.

The pharmacist submitted an affidavit stating she threw away the outdated lists without shredding them, as the prison had no requirement for her to destroy the confidential information.

She said she did not know what happened to those lists after she placed the bagged trash out the back door of the pharmacy into a secure hallway.

Kenneth Kirks testified that he was an inmate at the Mansfield facility in June 2011, when he was cleaning an area by the loading dock and Dumpsters.

He said he saw papers under the Dumpster and used a leaf blower to retrieve them.

He saw that the papers listed HIV-positive inmates and chronic care inmates and proceeded to share them with a fellow inmate.

The two then made copies and dispersed them to the general inmate population.

Phillip Kukla also testified and stated that he was working with Kirks when the documents were located.

He said, however, that Kirks was going through the Dumpster in search of contraband when he found the papers. He further stated that Kirks suggested using them to blackmail or extort other inmates.

The documents were dispersed and the 10 men listed on them filed an action against the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction.

The Court of Claims of Ohio granted summary judgment for ODRC after ruling that the nonspecific invasion of privacy claims were constitutional in nature and out of its jurisdiction.

In regard to the prisoners’ claims of wrongful dissemination of medical information, the court found the ODRC was entitled to discretionary immunity.

On appeal to the 10th District, the inmates argued that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment.

“Viewing the evidence, where conflicting, in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, the question is whether these facts support their claims for unauthorized release of medical information or invasion of privacy,” Judge Joseph Vukovich, who sat by assignment, wrote for the court.

The appellate judges found that the inmates failed to state any specific federal entitlement that could apply to a state institution.

They also determined that the inmates’ claims would have to go forward as a general constitutional claim and ruled that the court of claims does not have the proper jurisdiction to consider such matters.

“The court of claims properly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over these claims. Having so concluded, however, the court then improperly went on to exercise de facto jurisdiction over the claims by granting summary judgment thereon,” Judge Vukovich stated.

The judges maintained that after a trial court determines that it lacks jurisdiction to consider a subject, its only course of action is to dismiss the case without prejudice.

“The trial court’s judgments will be reversed on this point, and remanded for the court of claims to modify its judgments accordingly,” Judge Vukovich continued.

With regard to the claims of unauthorized release of medical information, the appellate panel found that ODRC is generally immune from tort liability for things related to policies and procedures.

It maintained that the institution had made a fundamental choice at an executive level regarding its medical trash disposal policy and that in this case that policy was being followed.

That policy demonstrated official judgment and the panel ruled that the state could not be sued for such an institutional policy.

“Comprehensively stated, in this instance institutional police was strictly followed, albeit with bad results. We therefore find that plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the doctrine of discretionary immunity.

“The judgments of the Court of Claims of Ohio granting summary judgment in favor of ODRC on plaintiffs’ claims for unauthorized disclosure of medical information are affirmed. The court of claims’ grant of summary judgment on plaintiffs’ remaining claims is reversed, and the matter remanded to modify its judgments to reflect a dismissal of these claims for lack of jurisdiction.”

Presiding Judge William Klatt and Judge Lisa Sadler concurred.

The case is cited Scott v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. and Corr., 2013-Ohio-4383.

[Back]