Hughes v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.

[Cite as Hughes v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2016-Ohio-7353.]

GARY W. HUGHES Case No. 2015-00679

Plaintiff Magistrate Robert Van Schoyck

v. DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF

REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION

Defendant

{¶1} Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody and control of defendant at the Allen

Oakwood Correctional Institution (AOCI), brings this action alleging that on April 10,

2015, due to negligence on the part of defendant, he was injured from wearing

handcuffs that were too small for his wrists. It is also alleged that defendant was

negligent in delaying or otherwise providing inadequate medical care for plaintiff’s

injuries. The issues of liability and damages were bifurcated and the case proceeded to

trial on the issue of liability.

{¶2} At trial, plaintiff testified that he has been in defendant’s custody at several

different institutions over the past 23 years, and he has been confined in the protective

custody unit at AOCI since January 2013. It was established that AOCI is comprised of

two different facilities on opposite ends of the property, Allen and Oakwood, and that the

Oakwood facility contains the protective custody unit to which plaintiff is assigned.

{¶3} Plaintiff stated that he suffers from chronic liver problems and was having

acute health issues at the time, so a doctor at AOCI ordered that he undergo an

ultrasound of his liver and gallbladder at defendant’s Franklin Medical Center (FMC) in

Columbus. As plaintiff related, on the day of the appointment, April 10, 2015, sometime

around 5:00 a.m. Corrections Officer Larry Gilbert escorted him from his cell, and after

dropping plaintiff’s personal property off at the inmate property vault, Gilbert escorted

Case No. 2015-00679 -2- DECISION

plaintiff to the admissions area of the Oakwood facility where he was put in a “strip

cage” and changed into transport clothing.

{¶4} According to plaintiff, who is 6’1” and 290 pounds, he told Gilbert that when

it came time to place him in restraints he would need either oversized or “soft restraints”

rather than standard restraints because his wrists are too large for the standard

handcuffs. Plaintiff testified that in 1996, a “medical restriction” was issued by medical

personnel at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility to allow him to have oversized or

soft restraints, and it was to remain in effect indefinitely. Plaintiff stated that although he

moved to many different prisons afterward and never obtained a renewal of the medical

restriction, he assumed it was still in effect. Plaintiff testified that over the years, officers

routinely applied oversized restraints to him, but elsewhere in his testimony he also

described being put in standard restraints “many times” throughout his incarceration and

how the standard handcuffs were problematic every time, and that this time was simply

worse than those in the past. Plaintiff also stated that in his experience at every one of

the prisons he has been in, it is a protocol of defendant’s to have a “white shirt”

supervisor present when inmates are dressed out to leave for a trip outside the

institution, but on this day there was no supervisor.

{¶5} Plaintiff related that when Corrections Officer Randall Harris came to relieve

Gilbert and apply the restraints, Gilbert told Harris that oversized restraints were needed

but Harris said none had been provided and that plaintiff would need to tell the transport

officers who were coming to get him. Plaintiff recalled that Corrections Officers Tim

Boroff and Steve Humes were operating the “hub” transport bus that day, and that

Harris told them about the issue with the handcuffs, but Boroff and Humes replied that

oversized restraints are not used on hub transports and plaintiff either needed to wear

standard restraints or he would not be permitted to board the bus. According to plaintiff,

due to the urgent nature of his medical issue he could not forego the trip, so he had

Case No. 2015-00679 -3- DECISION

Harris apply the restraints and he got on the bus around 6:00 a.m. Plaintiff testified that

there was room between the handcuffs and his wrists for Harris to fit a fingertip.

{¶6} Plaintiff stated that he has experienced some swelling every time he has

worn standard handcuffs, but it was worse this particular day. Plaintiff testified that a

groove formed on one of his wrists within about 45 minutes, and during the two-hour trip

to FMC Boroff and Humes apologized and said they would figure out a better solution

the next time. Plaintiff stated that when the bus arrived at FMC he was placed in a

holding cell in the maximum security area, and when he complained about the

handcuffs corrections officers told him he had to keep the restraints on due to his

protective custody status. Plaintiff stated that after waiting for about three hours, he

was seen for his appointment, at which time the handcuffs were removed for five to ten

minutes, but as soon as it was over Boroff reapplied the handcuffs. According to

plaintiff, there were grooves in his wrists and some swelling, and he complained to

Boroff but was told that nothing could be done at that time. Plaintiff recounted going

back to the cell and waiting for about an hour, at which time his hands started going

numb and turning purple.

{¶7} Plaintiff testified that when he got back on the bus, he complained

repeatedly to Boroff and Humes, but they apologized and said nothing could be done in

the middle of the transport operation. When the bus reached AOCI about two hours

later, plaintiff stated, he was taken to the medical department in the Allen facility for a

routine medical check that all inmates returning to the institution must undergo, and at

that time he complained to a Nurse Harris, but she was not concerned and the restraints

remained on. As plaintiff recalled, he was then transported by bus to the Oakwood

facility, where Corrections Officer Steven Mayle put him in a strip cage and removed his

restraints. According to plaintiff, there were wounds on both wrists, and the right wrist

was bleeding. Plaintiff stated that upon seeing this, Mayle went to get a camera, saying

that he wanted to document plaintiff’s condition, and Mayle took photographs and

Case No. 2015-00679 -4- DECISION

prepared an Incident Report. (Plaintiff’s Exhibits 3, 4, 18.) Plaintiff stated that Mayle

notified Unit Manager Shawn Wakefield and then-Lieutenant Ira Collier, and also

contacted the medical department, and when Mayle escorted plaintiff back to his

housing unit Mayle advised Corrections Officers Daniel Fifer and Michael Laurita of the

same.

{¶8} Within a couple of hours after his return to the unit, plaintiff stated, Nurse

Shawn Kiser came to examine him. Plaintiff testified that Kiser cleaned the wounds,

applied an antibiotic ointment, and applied a bandage to one wrist, and Kiser also filled

out a Medical Exam Report and another assessment form for skin complaints.

(Plaintiff’s Exhibits 1, 5.) Plaintiff stated that Kiser advised him to apply ice to reduce

the swelling and told him that he would be scheduled to follow up with a doctor in a few

days.

{¶9} Plaintiff stated that the next morning, he told a Lieutenant Kleanse what

happened, and she told him that Lieutenant James Groch was supposed to have been

in the transport area when plaintiff left and he should have ensured that the restraints

were properly applied. Plaintiff testified that on April 13, 2015, he submitted an Informal

Complaint Resolution (ICR) form to Groch. (Plaintiff’s Exhibit 10.) According to plaintiff,

on April 15, 2015, Groch came to see him and took him to the medical department to

see a Nurse Taylor, who filled out a Medical Exam Report which noted a faint red mark

on the top of the left wrist and an abrasion on the top of the right wrist. (Plaintiff’s

Exhibit 2.) Plaintiff testified that he subsequently made repeated visits to see a doctor

and other medical personnel, and his prescribed treatment included applying ice, taking

vitamin B6, and soaking his wrists in a basin that was temporarily issued to him.

Plaintiff explained that he suffers from medical issues which inhibit the healing ability of

his skin, and that any bruising or damage to the skin is therefore a concern.

{¶10} Corrections Officer Larry Gilbert testified that he has worked in the

Oakwood facility since 1986, and he typically works the third shift, from 10:00 p.m. to

Case No. 2015-00679 -5- DECISION

6:00 a.m. Gilbert stated that he does not specifically remember the events in question,

but in general when an inmate is to be transported outside the institution his typical

process is to escort the inmate down to the admissions area and get him dressed out

for the trip, and when the transport officers arrive they are responsible for applying

restraints to the inmate.

{¶11} Corrections Officer Randall Harris testified that he has worked for

defendant since 1994, and he serves as a transport officer. From Harris’ description, he

keeps track of whether any inmates need to be transported, either from the Oakwood

facility to the Allen facility for appointments, or outside of AOCI entirely, and he or a

partner will get weapons and prepare a transport vehicle. Harris testified that inmates

are dressed out in orange clothing and then restraints are applied, including leg irons,

handcuffs, and a belly chain. Harris described the process by which he applies

restraints, including ensuring that he can fit a finger between the handcuffs and the

wrist, and double-locking the handcuffs so they cannot close any tighter. Harris stated

that once that is done, inmates are escorted to the transport vehicle, secured in the

vehicle, and driven to their destination. As Harris explained, he and his partner perform

the actual transportation of the inmates between the Oakwood and Allen facilities as

well as some non-hub transports to other institutions, and on those trips he or his

partner apply restraints belonging to AOCI. Harris also explained, though, that inmates

traveling on a hub transport to FMC are driven by hub transport officers, not himself,

and the restraints that are applied to inmates on hub transports belong to FMC or

defendant’s central office, and AOCI’s restraints cannot be used. Harris stated that

those inmates are held in the admissions area until the hub transport officers arrive with

a vehicle.

{¶12} Harris testified that he has a vague recollection of applying a set of

standard hub transport restraints to plaintiff that morning, and plaintiff did not complain

and there was no indication anything was wrong. Harris has no recollection of Gilbert

Case No. 2015-00679 -6- DECISION

telling him that plaintiff needed oversized restraints. According to Harris, plaintiff then

got on the bus with the transport officers and he did not see plaintiff again that day.

Harris stated that on April 14, 2015, he prepared an Incident Report after getting a

message about an investigation being conducted into a complaint from plaintiff.

(Defendant’s Exhibit C.)

{¶13} Corrections Officer Steve Humes testified that he has worked for defendant

for 22 years, and he serves as a transport officer. Like Harris, Humes explained that he

typically transports inmates between facilities on non-hub transports, but when this

occurred there was a staffing shortage for the hub transports so he went along on the

trip that day and acted as a hub transport officer. Humes stated that the hub transport

route both to and from FMC included at a stop at Marion Correctional Institution, and he

and his partner, Boroff, split up the driving duties. Humes stated that there were other

inmates on the bus besides plaintiff that day, and he explained that plaintiff would have

been held in full restraints in a maximum security cell while at FMC because defendant

treats inmates in protective custody as maximum security inmates.

{¶14} Humes testified that hub transports only utilize standard restraints issued

by defendant’s central office in Columbus, unless an inmate has a medical restriction for

soft restraints. Humes stated that transportation officers are issued lists of inmates who

have such a medical restriction and there was never any notification prior to this incident

about plaintiff having such a restriction. Humes brought to the trial one set each of

standard restraints, one set of soft restraints, and one set of flex cuffs, which are an

alternate form of soft restraints; a photograph of these items was admitted as Joint

Exhibit 1. Additionally, Humes testified about the three classes of inmate transports.

Humes stated that a Class A transport is the standard method, requiring that the inmate

be fully restrained in handcuffs, leg irons, and a belly chain. Humes stated that a Class

B transport does not require those restraints, but it is limited to minimum security

Case No. 2015-00679 -7- DECISION

“cadre” inmates or inmates working for Ohio Penal Industries. Finally, Humes stated

that a Class C transport involves an inmate with a medical restriction for soft restraints.

{¶15} Humes stated that he did not talk to plaintiff during the bus ride either way

and he never heard any complaint from plaintiff about his restraints until the trip was

over and plaintiff returned to the Oakwood facility. Humes testified that he had been

present just prior to that when the nurse at the Allen facility performed the routine check

of all the returning inmates, and plaintiff had expressed no problems then.

Nevertheless, Humes stated that when the handcuffs were removed at the Oakwood

facility plaintiff complained they were too tight. Humes testified that he did not observe

any bleeding or bruising, only a slight indentation, which is normal when one has worn

handcuffs for several hours. Humes stated that he told plaintiff he would need to talk to

the medical department at AOCI if he wanted to get a medical restriction for special

restraints, as there was nothing the corrections officers could do, and he denied making

any apology to plaintiff about the situation. Humes testified that on April 14, 2015, he

filled out an Incident Report after being advised to do so by a deputy warden of

operations. (Defendant’s Exhibit B.)

{¶16} Corrections Officer Tim Boroff testified that he has been employed with

defendant since 1993, and on the day in question he served as a hub transport officer.

Boroff described the hub transport system that defendant utilizes for transporting

inmates from the various institutions to FMC. Boroff explained that hub transports are

performed either with a van or a bus, depending on the number of inmates involved,

and on this particular day they used a bus.

{¶17} Boroff stated that he and his partner, Humes, dressed out and loaded onto

the bus any inmates from the Allen facility, then drove to the Oakwood facility to pick up

plaintiff and any other inmates there. Boroff recounted that when they arrived at the

Oakwood facility, plaintiff was already dressed out and wearing a set of standard

restraints. According to Boroff, inmates on hub transports must wear restraints

Case No. 2015-00679 -8- DECISION

belonging to the hub system, and they must be standard restraints unless inmates have

a medical restriction issued by a physician for special restraints. Boroff also indicated

that a supervisor, if present, may have authority to deviate from this policy, but as a

corrections officer he had no discretion to permit plaintiff to wear anything other than

standard restraints. Boroff stated that, as far as he was aware, plaintiff did not have a

medical restriction on file.

{¶18} Furthermore, Boroff stated that plaintiff did not complain to him at all about

his wrists or handcuffs. From Boroff’s recollection, plaintiff also made no complaints

upon returning to AOCI and undergoing the routine check by the nurse at the Allen

facility. Boroff testified that it was not until plaintiff was returned to the Oakwood facility

that he made any complaint at all. Boroff stated that he removed the handcuffs in the

strip cage at Oakwood, and at that time plaintiff rubbed his wrists and said the handcuffs

were a little too tight. Boroff recalled seeing some redness and indentations on

plaintiff’s wrists, but no swelling or blood. According to Boroff, when plaintiff was asked

why he did not mention anything to the nurse whom he had just seen at the Allen

facility, plaintiff stated that it was not a big deal.

{¶19} Boroff testified that on April 15, 2015, he prepared an Incident Report at the

request of the institutional inspector, who was looking into plaintiff’s complaint about the

matter. Boroff explained that, at the time of the events on April 10, 2015, there did not

seem to be any issue significant enough to fill out a report. (Plaintiff’s Exhibit D.)

{¶20} Corrections Officer Daniel Fifer testified that he has worked for defendant

for about 23 years. Fifer stated that his normal assignment when these events occurred

was supervising the “West 2” unit at the Oakwood facility during the third shift, such that

he was present when plaintiff left the unit on the morning of April 10, 2015, and on that

particular day he also came in to work the second shift starting at 2:00 p.m., such that

he was present when plaintiff returned. Fifer added that Corrections Officer Michael

Laurita was also assigned to the unit with him during the second shift.

Case No. 2015-00679 -9- DECISION

{¶21} Fifer testified that he received a slip of paper that morning stating that

plaintiff was to leave AOCI on a transport, but he did not know where plaintiff was

headed and he had no involvement in the transport. Fifer recalled that when plaintiff

was escorted back to the unit after the transport, plaintiff showed him his wrists, which

were red and swollen and looked bad, and he told whoever was escorting plaintiff that

this should not have happened. Fifer stated that a nurse was called, but he did not

have any interaction with the nurse who saw plaintiff that evening.

{¶22} Corrections Officer Michael Laurita testified that he was assigned to the

West 2 unit during the second shift at the time of these events and he was present

when plaintiff returned from the transport. Laurita authenticated an entry he made in the

unit log book at 5:48 p.m. to document plaintiff’s return to the unit. (Defendant’s Exhibit

A.) Laurita stated that he has no recollection of plaintiff complaining of any injury or

showing him his wrists.

{¶23} Lieutenant James Groch, Jr. testified that he has been employed with

defendant since 2004, and at the time of these events he worked various hours at

AOCI, with his primary responsibility being supervision of inmate transportation in and

out of the institution. Groch stated that he does not know whether he was on duty at the

time plaintiff left the institution, but he knows that he was not present when plaintiff was

dressed out and placed in restraints that morning. Groch also stated that a supervisor

such as himself is supposed to be present when an inmate goes through that process.

{¶24} Groch testified that when inmates leave AOCI for a hub transport, such as

the one that plaintiff went on, defendant’s Columbus-based hub system supplies the

restraints, not AOCI. Groch stated that oversized restraints, which are slightly larger

than standard restraints, are available for use inside AOCI, but the hub transports do

not utilize oversized restraints at all. Groch also stated that soft restraints may be

utilized on hub transports, but whether it is on a hub transport or elsewhere an inmate

Case No. 2015-00679 -10- DECISION

may only have soft restraints when the medical department has issued a medical

restriction specifically authorizing soft restraints.

{¶25} Groch stated that he learned about this incident when he received plaintiff’s

ICR. (Plaintiff’s Exhibit 10.) Groch related that he subsequently investigated plaintiff’s

complaint, including interviewing plaintiff and at least Boroff and Humes, if not other

employees. According to Groch, during their interview plaintiff was primarily upset with

the medical department for not having a medical restriction for soft restraints on file.

Groch testified that he contacted the medical department at AOCI and determined that

plaintiff indeed did not have a medical restriction for soft restraints in effect at the time of

this incident, and he authenticated a memorandum he received from Nurse Lisa

Peterson documenting that fact. (Plaintiff’s Exhibit 8.) Groch further testified that at his

request the medical department had a nurse examine plaintiff on April 15, 2015, and

prepare a corresponding Medical Exam Report. (Plaintiff’s Exhibit 2.)

{¶26} Corrections Officer Steven Mayle testified that he has been employed with

defendant for over 20 years, and at the time in question he worked the second shift in

the Oakwood facility, from 2:00 to 10:00 p.m. Mayle testified that when plaintiff arrived

back in the admissions area of the Oakwood facility, plaintiff complained that his wrists

hurt. According to Mayle, the handcuffs did not necessarily look to be too tight from his

observation, but when he removed them and looked at plaintiff’s wrists, he observed

slight swelling and a little redness, but no blood.

{¶27} Mayle stated that he contacted his supervisor, then-Lieutenant Ira Collier,

and was advised to take photographs, which he did, and he also prepared an Incident

Report. (Plaintiff’s Exhibits 3, 4, 18.) Mayle related that there was no nurse available at

that moment, so when he escorted plaintiff back to the housing unit he advised Fifer that

a nurse needed to come by and take a look at plaintiff.

{¶28} Captain Ira Collier testified that at the time of this incident, he was a

lieutenant assigned to the Oakwood facility and worked the second shift, from 1:00 p.m.

Case No. 2015-00679 -11- DECISION

to 9:00 p.m. As far as Collier could recall, he was present when plaintiff returned to the

Oakwood facility late that afternoon, and the issue with the restraints was brought to his

attention, probably by Mayle, but he does not remember having any contact with plaintiff

that day.

{¶29} Shawn Wakefield testified that he now works at the Allen facility, but at the

time of this incident he was the Unit Manager for the entire Oakwood facility. Wakefield

testified that he did not learn about these events until several days after the fact, when

plaintiff brought it to his attention and showed him his wrists. Wakefield described

observing a light red circular mark on one of the wrists. Wakefield stated that he asked

plaintiff how it happened and he made sure that plaintiff had been seen by medical

personnel.

{¶30} Robert Yochum, R.N. testified that he is employed with defendant as the

acting Health Care Administrator for AOCI. Yochum testified that he has worked for

defendant for many years in various medical and mental health positions, and his

experience also includes EMT and paramedic work, and 20 years as a medic and nurse

in the Army. Yochum testified that he has reviewed plaintiff’s medical records, and he

authenticated portions of the records, including a progress note written by Quinlan

Harris, RN, documenting that she examined plaintiff when he arrived back at the Allen

facility at 5:00 p.m. on April 10, 2015, noting that he denied any pain or discomfort.

(Defendant’s Exhibit E.) Yochum also testified about medical restrictions, explaining

that they remain effective for up to one year from the date of issuance, and they must

be renewed to be effective any longer than that. Yochum stated that when he reviewed

plaintiff’s medical file, he did not find any medical restrictions predating the events of

April 10, 2015.

{¶31} “In a claim predicated on negligence, plaintiff bears the burden of proving

by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant breached a duty owed to him and

Case No. 2015-00679 -12- DECISION

that this breach proximately caused the injury.” Woods v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.,

130 Ohio App.3d 742, 744 (10th Dist.1998).

{¶32} “In the context of a custodial relationship between the state and its

prisoners, the state owes a common law duty of reasonable care and protection from

unreasonable risks.” Nott v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 10th Dist. Franklin No.

09AP-842, 2010-Ohio-1588, ¶ 8. “Although the state is not an insurer of the safety of

inmates, once it becomes aware of a dangerous condition it must take reasonable care

to prevent injury to the inmate.” Harwell v. Grafton Correctional Institution, 10th Dist.

Franklin No. 04AP-1020, 2005-Ohio-1544, ¶ 11. “Reasonable care is that degree of

caution and foresight an ordinarily prudent person would employ in similar

circumstances, and includes the duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent an inmate

from being injured by a dangerous condition about which the state knows or should

know.” McElfresh v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 04AP-177,

2004-Ohio-5545, ¶ 16.

{¶33} Upon review of the evidence presented at trial, the magistrate finds as

follows. On April 10, 2015, plaintiff was escorted to the transportation area at the

Oakwood facility, dressed in transport clothing, and placed in a set of standard

restraints, including leg irons, handcuffs, and a belly chain. When Corrections Officer

Harris applied the handcuffs, he was able to fit a finger between the handcuffs and

plaintiff’s wrist. The method used by Harris for assessing the tightness of the handcuffs

was appropriate. See Harwell at ¶ 12.

{¶34} Sometime after 6:00 a.m., Corrections Officers Boroff and Humes escorted

plaintiff out of the Oakwood facility and secured him in a bus, which held as many as

about 20 other inmates, and the bus proceeded on a hub transport route to FMC,

making one stop along the way at Marion Correctional Institution. When the bus arrived

at FMC, plaintiff was escorted inside and placed in a maximum security holding cell.

Pursuant to departmental policy, inmates such as plaintiff who are in protective custody

Case No. 2015-00679 -13- DECISION

must remain in full restraints in a maximum security cell while waiting at FMC. The

restraints were removed for five to ten minutes when plaintiff underwent an ultrasound

and then the restraints were reapplied and he was escorted back to the holding cell.

When the handcuffs were reapplied, there were no abrasions or other wounds on

plaintiff’s wrists.

{¶35} In the afternoon, Corrections Officers Boroff and Humes secured plaintiff

and the other inmates in the bus and returned to AOCI. It is defendant’s policy that all

inmates returning from hub transports are examined by medical personnel upon

returning to the institution. In accordance with that policy, plaintiff was escorted inside

the Allen facility at 5:00 p.m. and examined by a nurse, while still in restraints. Based

upon the progress note written by the nurse and the recollection of the officers escorting

him, it is probable that plaintiff did not express a complaint at that time. Afterward,

plaintiff was escorted back to the bus and transported across the property to the

Oakwood facility.

{¶36} Pursuant to standard procedure, plaintiff’s restraints were removed once he

entered the Oakwood facility at approximately 5:20 p.m. For the first time, some minor

injury to the skin could be seen, directly underneath where the handcuffs had been

secured on the wrists, but there was no bleeding. Plaintiff complained to corrections

officers at that time. Corrections Officer Mayle photographed plaintiff’s wrists and

arranged for a nurse to come and examine him. At 8:56 p.m., a nurse examined

plaintiff’s wrists and applied a bandage over abrasions on the right wrist. On or after

April 13, 2015, plaintiff submitted an ICR to Lieutenant Groch to complain about the

events that occurred three days earlier, and, as a result, Groch arranged for plaintiff to

be evaluated again by a nurse on April 15, 2015, almost immediately after Groch

became aware of this matter. Several times thereafter, plaintiff received additional care

and treatment for his wrists from AOCI medical personnel.

Case No. 2015-00679 -14- DECISION

{¶37} The magistrate finds that plaintiff did not establish a breach of defendant’s

duty of reasonable care. When the handcuffs were applied to plaintiff on the morning of

April 10, 2015, they fit appropriately. Although plaintiff testified that indentations formed

in his skin as the day went on, some temporary indentations in the wrist commonly

occur when one wears handcuffs for a long period of time, as Corrections Officer

Humes stated. Departmental policy required that plaintiff wear handcuffs at all times

both on the bus and at FMC, other than when he received the ultrasound, and

defendant’s actions in conformance with such policy are protected under the doctrine of

discretionary immunity. See Reynolds v. State, 14 Ohio St.3d 68, 70 (1984). The

abrasions or irritation to the wrists upon which this lawsuit is predicated were not

present when the handcuffs were removed at FMC during the ultrasound and could not

be seen until the handcuffs were removed back at the Oakwood facility. Although

plaintiff probably did complain about the handcuffs at some point to Corrections Officers

Boroff or Humes, the handcuffs had fit appropriately that morning, there were no

wounds visible, the handcuffs did not outwardly appear to be too tight even by the time

plaintiff returned to Oakwood, and the foreseeability of injury was lacking. Insofar as

plaintiff testified that he has a medical condition inhibiting the ability of his skin to heal,

there is no evidence that the corrections officers knew this, and the nature of this

concern underscores the fact that it is up to medical professionals to determine whether

an inmate should have special restraints.

{¶38} It is plaintiff’s contention that when he was prepared for the transport in the

morning he should have been placed in soft restraints or oversized restraints, but the

evidence clearly establishes that, as a general rule, an inmate must have a valid

medical restriction issued by a physician specifying the need for such restraints. There

is no such document in plaintiff’s medical file predating the day in question. Even if it is

true that plaintiff had been issued a medical restriction at the Southern Ohio

Correctional Facility in 1996, it was established that medical restrictions are not valid for

Case No. 2015-00679 -15- DECISION

more than one year, unless they are renewed. Any medical restriction plaintiff might

have been issued in 1996 expired long ago. Indeed, plaintiff testified that in the

intervening years he moved around to numerous prisons and there were “many times”

where he had problems with standard restraints.

{¶39} There was some evidence adduced that a supervisor may have the

discretion under certain circumstances to allow the use of non-standard restraints, and

plaintiff emphasized that he felt a supervisor should have been present when he left for

the trip, but whether a supervisor had been present or not, the handcuffs were checked

and found to fit properly, making special restraints unnecessary at that time.

Notwithstanding the purported medical restriction from 1996, the evidence also does not

show that plaintiff requested or was evaluated for a medical restriction for oversize or

soft restraints prior to April 10, 2015, even less so that any physician employed by

defendant was negligent in failing to issue him one.

{¶40} To the extent that plaintiff alleges defendant was negligent in delaying or

otherwise providing inadequate medical care for his injuries, there was not shown to be

any unreasonable delay in the medical care and treatment plaintiff received after the

accident. The magistrate finds that plaintiff did not demonstrate by a preponderance of

the evidence that defendant breached a duty of care owed to him with regard to his

medical care and treatment at any time, nor any harm proximately caused by such a

delay.

{¶41} Based on the foregoing, the magistrate finds that plaintiff failed to prove his

claims by a preponderance of the evidence. Accordingly, judgment is recommended in

favor of defendant.

{¶42} A party may file written objections to the magistrate’s decision within 14

days of the filing of the decision, whether or not the court has adopted the decision

during that 14-day period as permitted by Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(e)(i). If any party timely files

objections, any other party may also file objections not later than ten days after the first

Case No. 2015-00679 -16- DECISION

objections are filed. A party shall not assign as error on appeal the court’s adoption of

any factual finding or legal conclusion, whether or not specifically designated as a

finding of fact or conclusion of law under Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(ii), unless the party timely

and specifically objects to that factual finding or legal conclusion within 14 days of the

filing of the decision, as required by Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b).

ROBERT VAN SCHOYCK

Magistrate

cc:

Richard F. Swope Amy S. Brown

6480 East Main Street, Suite 102 James P. Dinsmore

Reynoldsburg, Ohio 43068 Timothy M. Miller

Assistant Attorneys General

150 East Gay Street, 18th Floor

Columbus, Ohio 43215-3130

Ashley A. Barbone

Assistant Attorney General

Legal Initiatives Section

30 East Broad Street, 17th Floor

Columbus, Ohio 43215

Filed September 20, 2016

Sent to S.C. Reporter 10/17/16