Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jack Nott v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction

October 27, 2011

JACK NOTT, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION,
DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.



APPEAL from the Court of Claims of Ohio (C.C. No. 2005-07950)

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Connor, J.

Cite as

Nott v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.,

(REGULAR CALENDAR)

DECISION

{¶1} Plaintiff-appellant, Jack Nott ("appellant"), appeals from a judgment rendered by the Court of Claims of Ohio in favor of defendant-appellee, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction ("ODRC"), with respect to his negligence claim. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

{¶2} This is the second time this matter has presented to this court. See Nott v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 10th Dist. No. 09AP-842, 2010-Ohio-1588. The record indicates that on August 19, 2003, appellant was an inmate in the Grafton Correctional Institution, was a chronic diabetic, and had severe circulatory problems. On that date, appellant and another inmate, Johnny McCarter, were transported to the Corrections Medical Center in Columbus to procure prescription eyeglasses. During the trip, the inmates were restrained by handcuffs, leg shackles, and stomach-chains. They were dressed in orange jumpsuits and were given orange canvas shoes. Apparently, appellant's left shoe did not fit properly and fell off numerous times. He notified the corrections officers and repeatedly put the shoe back on. Eventually, however, one of the officers instructed appellant to simply carry the shoe. Accordingly, appellant walked with a bare left-foot during part of the trip. Also, during the trip, appellant's leg shackles caused an abrasion on his right ankle that required medical treatment.

{¶3} On June 30, 2005, appellant filed a complaint, which presented allegations of negligence. The allegations concerned injuries that purportedly resulted from being forced to walk without a shoe on his left foot, in addition to the abrasion from the shackling of his legs. On October 27, 2006, the matter proceeded to a bifurcated trial to determine ODRC's liability. The trial court found in favor of ODRC, and appellant filed a timely appeal to this court. We affirmed in part and reversed in part. See Nott at ¶25. Specifically, we affirmed with respect to the injuries to appellant's left foot but reversed and remanded the matter for consideration of whether ODRC was negligent in shackling appellant's legs.

{¶4} Upon remand, a magistrate of the trial court found in favor of ODRC on the issue of its liability. Appellant filed timely objections to the magistrate's decision. The trial court overruled appellant's objection and adopted the magistrate's decision as its own.

Judgment was rendered by the trial court on October 10, 2010. Appellant has timely appealed and presents the following assignments of error:

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 1:

THE TRIAL COURT AND THE MAGISTRATE ERRED IN FAILING TO CONSIDER THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE THAT PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT WAS A CHRONIC DIABETIC AND EXTREME CAUTION HAD TO BE TAKEN TO PREVENT INJURY TO APPENDAGES.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 2:

THE MAGISTRATE AND TRIAL COURT ERRED IN RULING IT WAS NECESSARY TO HAVE A MEDICAL RESTRICTION TO PROTECT AN INMATE, WITH A CHRONIC DIABETIC CONDITION AND WITH SEVERE CIRCULATORY AND HEART CONDITIONS, FROM INJURY WHEN THERE WAS A STANDARD OF CARE ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.