Goldsby v. Gerber

• Decision Date: 16 March 1987
• Docket Number: No. 51863,51863
• Citation: 31 Ohio App.3d 268,31 OBR 553,511 N.E.2d 417
• Parties: , 31 O.B.R. 553 GOLDSBY, Appellant, v. GERBER, Coroner, Appellee.
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

Page 268

31 Ohio App.3d 268

511 N.E.2d 417, 31 O.B.R. 553

GOLDSBY, Appellant, v. GERBER, Coroner, Appellee.

No. 51863.

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County.

March 16, 1987.

Syllabus by the Court

1. A person may not compel the county coroner to delete a suicide finding from a death certificate by an action in mandamus, or by actions seeking declaratory or injunctive relief.

2. That portion of R.C. 313.19 providing for judicial review of the county coroner's findings is void for vagueness.

3. A coroner's findings do not satisfy the definition of an order appealable under R.C. Chapter 2506.

Ticktin, Baron, Kiepper & Co., L.P.A., and Russell Z. Baron, Cleveland, for appellant Zelma Goldsby.

John T. Corrigan, Pros. Atty., and Patrick J. Murphy, Cleveland, for appellee, Samuel Gerber, Cuyahoga County Coroner.

MARKUS, Chief Justice.

The plaintiff-mother appeals from the dismissal of her action for mandamus, declaratory relief, or injunctive relief. Her complaint sought to compel the county coroner to delete a suicide finding from her daughter's death certificate. She complains that the court required her to prove her claim by clear and convincing evidence, and ruled contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.

We hold that a decedent's relative cannot challenge the coroner's opinion by the proceedings used here. Hence, the burden of proof and the weight of the evidence have no legal significance. The trial court properly dismissed the plaintiff's action.

I

The plaintiff's daughter died on November 27, 1981. The coroner issued the daughter's death certificate, described her death as "SUICIDE," and explained that the injury was a "self-inflicted gunshot wound." The "Coroner's Verdict," which accompanied the death certificate, contained the following:

"Upon full inquiry based on all known facts, I find that the said Saundra D. Goldsby came to her death officially on the 27th day of November, 1981 at 8001 Vineyard Avenue * * *. There is history that on November 27, 1981, at about 12:53 P.M., the said Saundra D. Goldsby shot herself in the chest at the above address. * * * An autopsy performed at the County Coroner's Office revealed that death was the end result of a gunshot wound and was suicidal in nature."

The "Coroner's Verdict" included a "Report of Autopsy," which stated the following "CAUSE OF DEATH":

"Gunshot wound of chest with lacerations of pulmonary artery and left lung. SUICIDE."

The plaintiff filed this action on January 3, 1984, more than two years after the coroner issued the contested death certificate. The plaintiff sought (a) a writ of mandamus to compel the coroner to remove all references to suicide from his documents, (b) a declaratory judgment that those findings were beyond the coroner's authority, and (c) an injunction against the coroner's violation of R.C. 313.19 which governs coroners' verdicts.

On May 25, 1984, the plaintiff filed a "Request for Hearing Pursuant to O.R.C. Sec. 313.19." After several preliminary rulings on these matters, the court consolidated this case with the plaintiff's action against a company that insured her daughter's life. Ultimately, the plaintiff tried her insurance case to a jury, and her case against the coroner to the court, in a joint trial. At the conclusion of all the evidence, the court dismissed the plaintiff's action against the coroner.

II

The physician who attended a decedent's last illness or the coroner has a duty to certify the cause of death. R.C. 3705.27. "If there is reason to believe that the death was caused by unlawful or suspicious means," the coroner is required to investigate and certify the cause of death. Id.; R.C. 313.09 and 313.17. An attending physician must notify the coroner if the decedent expired in a suspicious or unusual manner, including criminal or violent means, casualty, or suicide. R.C. 313.12. Others who discover that a person died in such a suspicious or unusual manner have the same responsibility before disturbing the body. R.C. 313.11.

Where the coroner investigates a death from a suspicious or unusual cause, he should record his finding in his verdict and the death certificate. Those documents have evidentiary value for other proceedings. R.C. 313.10, 313.19. They are a special type of admissible public records. See Evid.R. 803(8); R.C. 3705.05. The coroner's finding constitutes the "legally accepted" physiological cause of death, but it may not establish which human agency caused that death. State v. Cousin (1982), 5 Ohio App.3d 32, 35, 5 OBR 34, 37-38, 449 N.E.2d 32, 36.

The plaintiff sought declaratory or injunctive relief to deny that the coroner had authority to make findings whether any death resulted from suicide. The statutes make clear that the coroner has that duty in appropriate cases. See, e.g., R.C. 313.11 (coroner's responsibility to investigate apparent "suicide"); R.C. 313.12 (physician's duty to notify coroner in "suicide" cases); R.C. 313.17 (coroner authorized to subpoena witnesses to inquire whether the deceased died by "violence to self").

The plaintiff also sought mandamus to compel the coroner to change his verdict and death certificate. However, the coroner's finding is a discretionary decision. Ordinarily, mandamus cannot control the exercise of that discretion. State, ex rel. Gerspacher, v. Coffinberry (1952), 157 Ohio St. 32, 47 O.O.31, 104 N.E.2d 1. Mandamus directs a discretionary decision only when reliable, probative and substantial evidence supports that decision, and no reliable, probative and substantial evidence supports a contrary decision. State, ex rel. Walters, v. Indus. Comm. (1985), 20 Ohio St.3d 71, 72-73, 20 OBR 402, 403, 486 N.E.2d 94, 95-96.

In this case, two deputy coroners described the weapon, the wound, and powder burns on the decedent's hand. They gave expert opinions that the plaintiff's daughter died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound. There was no contrary expert opinion. Instead, the plaintiff relies on lay observations about the decedent's mood and activities earlier that day.

We review the weight and sufficiency of evidence for a mandamus action as if the action had been filed in this court. Cf. State, ex rel. Bailey, v. Indus. Comm. (1986), 23 Ohio St.3d 53, 54, 23 OBR 127, 128, 491 N.E.2d 308, 309 (comparable rule when the Supreme Court reviews a mandamus action filed in an appellate court). The evidence...