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.

Rachel v. Centimark Corporation

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Ninth District, Summit

August 14, 2019

JONATHAN RACHEL Appellant
v.
CENTIMARK CORPORATION, et al. Appellee

          APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO CASE No. CV-2017-10-4399

          JONATHAN RACHEL, pro se, Appellant.

          LISA PATTERSON, Attorney at Law, for Appellee.

          NANCY Q. WALKER, Assistant Attorney General, for Appellee.

          DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

          HENSAL, JUDGE.

         {¶1} Jonathan Rachel appeals a judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas that dismissed his complaint under Civil Rule 12(B)(6). For the following reasons, this Court affirms.

         I.

         {¶2} Mr. Rachel filed a complaint against Centimark Corporation in the common pleas court. The court issued an order sua sponte, noting that Mr. Rachel had designated the matter as an administrative appeal, and directing him to amend his complaint to conform to the court's local rules for such appeals. Mr. Rachel subsequently filed an amended complaint against the Ohio Industrial Commission and Centimark. He attached a copy of a decision by the Ohio Industrial Commission to his amended complaint.

         {¶3} After Centimark and the Commission submitted their answers to the amended complaint, they moved for its dismissal under Civil Rule 12(B)(6), alleging that it did not give fair notice of the nature of the action. Mr. Rachel opposed their motions, but the common pleas court granted them, finding "no basis for a legal claim for relief[.]" The court also concluded that Mr. Rachel could "prove no set of facts entitling him to recovery in this matter[.]" Mr. Rachel has appealed, assigning as error that Centimark and the Commission incorrectly denied him workers' compensation.

         II.

         ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

APPELLEE'S DENIED WORKERS COMPENSATION DO (SIC) TO THE FACT OF APPELLANT'S SPOILATION NEGLIGENCE BREACH OF DUTY OF APPELLEE'S MEDICAL RECORDS ARTICLE II, SECTION 35, OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION.

         {¶4} Mr. Rachel asserts that he has significant problems with his lungs, which he believes is due to his exposure to silica dust while working for Centimark. He alleges that his employer's doctor failed to address his concerns and refused to send him to a specialist. He also alleges that his employer's doctor failed to document his concerns, spoiling his medical record. He further alleges that Centimark failed to provide him with all of his medical records. He argues that he should be entitled to compensation if Centimark is responsible for his medical issues.

         {¶5} The trial court wrote that, presuming all the factual allegations in the complaint were true and making all reasonable inferences in Mr. Rachel's favor, it could not find any basis for a legal claim against Centimark or the Commission. It, therefore, granted their motions to dismiss. In his brief, Mr. Rachel has not developed an argument regarding Centimark's and the Commission's motions to dismiss. He has not attempted to show why the amended complaint he filed should not have been dismissed under Rule 12(B)(6). Although Mr. Rachel is pro se, "we must hold pro se litigants to the same standards as those represented by counsel * * *." Sherlockv. Myers, 9th Dist. Summit No. 22071, 2004-Ohio-5178, ΒΆ 5. Upon review of Mr. ...


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.