FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF
SUMMIT, OHIO CASE No. CV-2017-10-4399
JONATHAN RACHEL, pro se, Appellant.
PATTERSON, Attorney at Law, for Appellee.
Q. WALKER, Assistant Attorney General, for Appellee.
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
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.
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.
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'
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.
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.
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, ¶ 5. Upon
review of Mr. ...