Thorne v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Thorne v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2009-Ohio-2836.] Court of Claims of Ohio The Ohio Judicial Center 65 South Front Street, Third Floor Columbus, OH 43215 614.387.9800 or 1.800.824.8263 www.cco.state.oh.us MICHAEL THORNE Plaintiff v. OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION, et al. Defendants Case No. 2008-08663 Judge Joseph T. Clark Magistrate Steven A. Larson ENTRY GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT {¶ 1} On December 5, 2008, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Civ.R. 56(B). Plaintiff did not file a response. The motion is now before the court on a non-oral hearing pursuant to L.C.C.R. 4(D). {¶ 2} Civ.R. 56(C) states, in part, as follows: {¶ 3} Summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, written admissions, affidavits, transcripts of evidence, and written stipulations of fact, if any, timely filed in the action, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. No evidence or stipulation may be considered except as stated in this rule. A summary judgment shall not be rendered unless it appears from the evidence or stipulation, and only from the evidence or stipulation, that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion and that conclusion is adverse to the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made, that party being entitled to have the evidence or stipulation construed most strongly in the party s favor. See also Case No. 2008-08663 -2- ENTRY Gilbert v. Summit County, 104 Ohio St.3d 660, 2004-Ohio-7108, citing Temple v. Wean United, Inc. (1977), 50 Ohio St.2d 317. {¶ 4} At all times relevant to this action, plaintiff was an inmate in the custody and control of the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (SOCF) pursuant to R.C. 5120.16. Plaintiff alleges that defendants have failed to provide him with proper mental health treatment while he has been incarcerated at SOCF. Defendants argue that plaintiff s mental health treatment has met the applicable standard of care. {¶ 5} In support of their motion for summary judgment, defendants provided the affidavit of Abbas Bawazer, M.D. Dr. Bawazer states: {¶ 6} 1. I am a licensed physician in the state of Ohio. I work as a psychiatrist at [SOCF]. {¶ 7} 2. [Plaintiff] is an inmate who is incarcerated at SOCF. He has been an inmate at SOCF since February 16, 2006 to the present. I have read the complaint that [plaintiff] has filed against the defendants in Case No. 2008-08663. {¶ 8} 3. As a psychiatrist, I treat inmates at SOCF who have various kinds of mental illnesses. I have provided mental health care and treatment to [plaintiff]. I have read and am familiar with [plaintiff s] mental health records. [Plaintiff] has been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia; he has had the diagnosis since March 9, 2006. {¶ 9} 4. Based upon my personal knowledge of [plaintiff] and review of his records, it is my professional opinion that physicians and other mental health professionals at SOCF have not denied [plaintiff] mental health treatment as he has alleged in his complaint. Indeed, it is my professional opinion that physicians such as myself and other mental health professionals have provided [plaintiff] with competent mental health care and treatment during his incarceration. Whether [plaintiff] was housed in a mental health unit was based upon a careful review of his mental records as well as an evaluation. Case No. 2008-08663 -3- ENTRY {¶ 10} Plaintiff did not file any affidavit to dispute the averments made by Dr. Bawazer. {¶ 11} Civ.R. 56(E) provides in part: {¶ 12} When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in this rule, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of the party s pleadings, but the party s response, by affidavit or as otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. If the party does not so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against the party. {¶ 13} In order to establish liability, plaintiff must produce evidence to establish both the relevant standard of care and proximate cause. See Bruni v. Tatsumi (1976), 46 Ohio St.2d 127. The appropriate standard of care must be proven by expert testimony which must construe what a medical professional of ordinary skill, care, and diligence in the same medical specialty would do in similar circumstances. Id. {¶ 14} Based upon the undisputed affidavit provided by Dr. Bawazer and in consideration of plaintiff s failure to provide the court with any evidence showing that a genuine issue of fact exists for trial, the court finds that defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, defendants motion for summary judgment is hereby GRANTED and judgment is rendered in favor of defendants. Court costs are assessed against plaintiff. The clerk shall serve upon all parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. _____________________________________ JOSEPH T. CLARK Judge cc: Case No. 2008-08663 Eric A. Walker Assistant Attorney General 150 East Gay Street, 18th Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215-3130 MR/cmd Filed May 26, 2009 To S.C. reporter June 15, 2009 -4Michael Thorne, #431-492 P.O. Box 45699 Lucasville, Ohio 45699 ENTRY
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.
