State ex rel. Clay v. Cuyahoga Cnty. Med. Examiners Office
Decision Date | 03 February 2016 |
Docket Number | No. 103514.,103514. |
Citation | 58 N.E.3d 552 |
Parties | STATE of Ohio, ex rel. Michael CLAY, Relator v. CUYAHOGA COUNTY MEDICAL EXAMINERS OFFICE, Respondent. |
Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Michael Clay, Mansfield, OH, for Relator, pro se.
Timothy J. McGinty, Cuyahoga County Prosecutor by Barbara R. Marburger, Assistant County Prosecutor, Cleveland, OH, for Respondent.
{¶ 1} Michael Clay has filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus. Clay seeks an order from this court that requires the Cuyahoga County Medical Examiner's Office (“coroner”) to provide him with all x-rays, photographs, and written reports that were created during the autopsy of his daughter in Cuyahoga Coroner Case No. IN00260612–Autopsy No. AU000082729. The coroner has filed a motion for summary judgment, which we deny for the following reasons.
{¶ 2} In order for this court to issue a writ of mandamus, Clay must establish a clear legal right to the requested autopsy file, a clear legal duty on the part of the coroner to provide the requested autopsy file, and the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth, 131 Ohio St.3d 55, 2012-Ohio-69, 960 N.E.2d 452 ; State ex rel. Husted v. Brunner, 123 Ohio St.3d 288, 2009-Ohio-5327, 915 N.E.2d 1215. Herein, Clay's request for all x-rays, photographs, and written reports, that were created during the autopsy of his deceased daughter, is premised upon R.C. 313.10.
{¶ 3} Ordinarily, many of the autopsy records maintained by the coroner are not considered “public records” and are exempted from release to the general public. R.C. 313.10 provides in pertinent part that:
{¶ 4} Attached to Clay's complaint for a writ of mandamus is a sworn affidavit and a birth certificate that establish that Clay is the biological father of the deceased child subject to an autopsy by the coroner. Thus, Clay has established that he possesses a clear legal right to the complete autopsy file of his deceased child per R.C. 310.10(C)(1). In addition, Clay possesses no other adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law to obtain the autopsy records from the coroner. Thus, we must determine whether the coroner possesses a clear legal duty to provide the complete autopsy file to Clay.
{¶ 5} The coroner, in an attempt to establish that it possesses no duty to provide Clay with the complete autopsy file, argues that when R.C. 149.43 (Ohio Public Records Statute), R.C. 2105.19 (Ohio Slayer Statute), and R.C. 313.10 (Coroner Public Records Statute) are read in pari materia, it is clear that no duty exists to provide Clay with the complete autopsy file. Specifically, the coroner argues in its motion for summary judgment that:
The body of laws governing the same subject must be read in pari materia. In re Z.R. , 2015-Ohio-3306 [44 N.E.3d 239], ¶ 19, citing In re C.W., 104 Ohio St.3d 163, 2004-Ohio-6411, 818 N.E.2d 1176, ¶ 7. The General Assembly has clearly and specifically limited incarcerated persons' access to investigative records concerning their cases. Furthermore, the law clearly provides that a person, such as the Relator, who has caused the death of another shall not “in any way benefit by the death.” R.C. 2105.19(A). It would be a brutal irony if, as a consequence of...
To continue reading
Request your trial