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.

Bixby v. The Ohio State University

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth District

May 24, 2018

Lori A. Bixby, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
The Ohio State University, Defendant-Appellee.

          APPEAL from the Court of Claims of Ohio Ct. of Cl. No. 2017-00567

         On brief:

          Lori A. Bixby, pro se.

          Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Jeanna V. Jacobus, for appellee.

         Argued:

          Lori A. Bixby.

          Jeanna V. Jacobus.

          DECISION

          DORRIAN, J.

         {¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant, Lori A Bixby, appeals the October 10, 2017 judgment of the Court of Claims of Ohio dismissing her complaint pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6). For the following reasons, we affirm.

         I. Facts and Procedural History

         {¶ 2} On June 26, 2017, appellant filed a complaint against defendant-appellee, The Ohio State University. In her complaint, appellant stated she received treatment at The Ohio State University's Stefanie Spielman Comprehensive Breast Center. Appellant alleged she received unnecessary treatment and suffered nerve damage and carpal tunnel symptoms resulting from medication she was prescribed.

         {¶ 3} On July 14, 2017, appellee filed a motion, pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6), to dismiss appellant's complaint for failing to support her complaint with an affidavit of merit as required by Civ.R. 10(D)(2). On July 26, 2017, appellant filed a motion to extend time to file an affidavit of merit. On August 18, 2017, the Court of Claims filed an order granting appellant until September 14, 2017 to file an affidavit of merit. On September 14, 2017, appellant filed a motion seeking to avoid the requirement to file an affidavit of merit because the "case is fairly straight-forward" or, in the alternative, seeking assistance in "find[ing] someone who can provide an affidavit of merit." On September 19, 2017, appellee filed a response to appellant's September 14, 2017 motion. On October 10, 2017, the Court of Claims filed an entry dismissing appellant's complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6).

         II. Discussion

         {¶ 4} Initially, we note that appellant elected to proceed pro se both in bringing this action and on appeal. "It is well-established that pro se litigants are presumed to have knowledge of the law and legal procedures and that they are held to the same standard as litigants who are represented by counsel." Sabouri v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs., 145 Ohio App.3d 651, 654 (10th Dist.2001). "In civil cases, the same rules, procedures and standards apply to one who appears pro se as apply to those litigants who are represented by counsel." Fields v. Stange, 10th ...


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.