Turk v. Oiler
| Decision Date | 11 August 2010 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 09-CV-381 |
| Citation | 732 F.Supp.2d 758 |
| Parties | James TURK, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Brian OILER, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio |
David G. Phillips, Cleveland, OH, for Plaintiffs.
Charles E. Hannan, Cleveland, OH, for Defendants.
CORRECTED MEMORANDUM & ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendants', The Cleveland Clinic Foundation ("the Cleveland Clinic"), Victoria Vance, and Jamie Clemons (referred to collectively as the "Cleveland Clinic Defendants"), Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to the Amended Complaint (Doc. 20). This Motion has been fully briefed and is ripe for adjudication. For the reasons articulated below, the Cleveland Clinic Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED.
Plaintiffs James and Marybeth Turk reside in Strongsville, Ohio. James Turk("Mr. Turk") is a former Strongsville police officer who is employed as a private investigator. The Defendants can be divided into four distinct groups: (1) the City of Strongsville Defendants; (2) the City of North Royalton Defendants; (3) the Cuyahoga County Defendants; and (4) the Cleveland Clinic Defendants.2 Because this matter is before the Court on the Cleveland Clinic Defendants' Motion, the Court will focus its discussion of the facts on those pertaining to the Cleveland Clinic Defendants' alleged activities.
The events precipitating this matter occurred on February 19, 2007, and began when Mr. Turk's vehicle ran out of gasoline in North Royalton while he was driving home to Strongsville. (Doc. 14 at ¶ 29.) At the time, Mr. Turk was working as a private investigator for the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas. ( Id.) As a result of his employment, and for safety purposes, Mr. Turk was carrying a gun he had purchased from Defendant Strongsville Police Chief Charles Goss in 1989. ( Id.) Mr. Turk alleges that the gun was stored in his vehicle and was unloaded. ( Id.)
Mr. Turk alleges that he sought the assistance of the North Royalton police department which, in turn, enlisted the help of the Strongsville police department. ( Id. at ¶ 30.) When one of the officers began searching his vehicle without permission, Mr. Turk asked if he was under arrest. ( Id. at ¶ 31.) Informed that he was not under arrest, Mr. Turk began walking away from his vehicle, at which point he alleges that he was attacked,handcuffed, detained, and searched by the officers. ( Id.) According to Mr. Turk, the officers forced him to tell them that he had an unloaded gun in the vehicle and proceeded to remove the gun from the vehicle. ( Id.) Mr. Turk was subsequently released from the handcuffs and driven home. ( Id. at ¶ 32.) Mr. Turk alleges he was not permitted to retrieve his personal property which had been taken by the officers. ( Id. at ¶ 33.)
On March 27, 2007, the Cleveland Clinic's Office of General Counsel received a grand jury subpoena issued by the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas. The subpoena requested that the Cleveland Clinic:
Provide the medical records to include but not be limited to drug and alcohol counseling and mental issues regarding James G. Turk, D.O.B. 6/16/1957, [SSN omitted], who was seen by Dr. Nicholas Davis, Dr. Fred Jorgensen, and Dr. Pozuelo. This subpoena may be satisfied by forwarding requested records to Det. Brian Oiler, Strongsville Police Department, 18688 Royalton Road, Strongsville, Ohio 44136.
(Doc. 20-6.)
It is undisputed that the Cleveland Clinic Defendants provided medical records in response to the grand jury subpoena. (Doc. 16 at ¶ 36.) Plaintiffs allege that the requested records were provided directly to Defendant Oiler. In preparing its response, the Cleveland Clinic discovered that two of the three medical providers listed on the subpoena-Drs. Nicholas Davis and Fred Jorgensen-did not provide medical treatment to Mr. Turk. (Doc. 16-2.)
Several of the claims in the Amended Complaint stem from or relate to Defendant Oiler's alleged conduct. At all times relevant to the Amended Complaint, Defendant Brian Oiler was employed as a police officer with the Strongsville Police Department. Plaintiffs allege that, on or about July 25, 2005, their son was involved in an altercation with a personal friend of Defendant Oiler. (Doc. 14 at ¶ 27.) This altercation led to a lawsuit against Defendant Oiler's friend: James Turk, et al. v. Namar Fritz, Case No. CV 06 596949, in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas. ( Id.) 3 Plaintiffs allege that, during the incident on February 19, 2007, one of the officers at the scene-Defendant Fender-"reminded the other Defendants present of Plaintiff's lawsuit against Defendant Oiler's friend, Namar Fritz." ( Id. at ¶ 32.)
In April 2007, after the grand jury issued the subpoena to the Cleveland Clinic, Mr. Turk discovered that Defendant Oiler had contacted one of Mr. Turk's medical providers. (Doc. 14 at ¶ 41.) Mr. Turk subsequently contacted Defendant Oiler to ascertain the reason why he was contacting his health care provider. ( Id.) It appears, based on the allegations in the Amended Complaint, that Mr. Turk's conduct in contacting Defendant Oiler led to Mr. Turk's indictment, on or about September 18, 2007, on two counts of intimidation of Defendant Oiler. ( Id. at ¶ 42.) This indictment initiated a separate and independent criminal case against Mr. Turk before the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas. ( Id.) It was not until sometime in April 2008 that Mr. Turk discovered the full extent of the medical records sought and obtained by Defendant Oiler. ( Id.)
According to Plaintiffs, Defendant Oiler obtained the names of the three (3) specific medical providers included in the grand jury subpoena from the Cleveland ClinicDefendants before the subpoena was issued. (Doc. 14 at ¶ 38.) Mr. Turk did not authorize the Cleveland Clinic Defendants to provide his medical records to Defendant Oiler. ( Id. at ¶ 41.) Nor did Mr. Turk give Defendant Oiler permission to discuss his records or course of treatment with any of his medical providers. ( Id.) Defendant Oiler testified that he secured the medical records to investigate Mr. Turk for an assault upon Defendant Rabak which had allegedly taken place on February 19, 2007. ( Id. at ¶ 39.) Plaintiffs allege that no such assault took place. ( Id.)
On June 6, 2007, James Turk was indicted, in connection with the February 19, 2007 incident, for carrying a concealed weapon in violation of O.R.C. § 2923.12 and for having a weapon while under disability in violation of O.R.C. § 2923.13. Section 2923.13 provides, in part, that "no person shall knowingly acquire, have, carry, or use any firearm" if "[t]he person is drug dependent, in danger of drug dependence, or a chronic alcoholic." O.R.C. § 2923.13(A)(4).
In the state court criminal action initiated in 2007 before Judge Jose A. Villanueva of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Mr. Turk filed a Motion for Treatment in Lieu of Conviction in which he indicated that he: (1) is drug dependent or in danger of becoming drug dependent; and (2) is presently participating in the Cleveland Clinic partial hospitalization treatment program (Mondays through Fridays 8 a.m. to 8 p.m.). (Doc. 20-5.)
On November 20, 2008, Mr. Turk filed a Motion to Dismiss; or in the Alternative, a Motion to Remove the Prosecutor for Misconduct and Appoint a Special Prosecutor. (Doc. 20-6.) In this Motion, which was directed primarily at the weapons under disability count, Mr. Turk argued that his privacy rights were violated when the Strongsville Police Department received illegally subpoenaed confidential medical records from the Cleveland Clinic. (Doc. 20-6 at 3-4.) In a Journal Entry dated November 21, 2008, Judge Villanueva denied Mr. Turk's Motion to Dismiss, and several other motions, without a written opinion. (Doc. 20-7.)
On or about November 21, 2008, the prosecutor dismissed the weapon under disability charge and Mr. Turk proceeded to trial on the sole remaining charge-carrying a concealed weapon. (Doc. 14 at ¶ 35.) On or about November 24, 2008, the jury found Mr. Turk not guilty of carrying a concealed weapon. ( Id.)
On February 18, 2009, Plaintiffs James and Marybeth Turk filed a complaint against the City of Strongsville Defendants, the City of North Royalton Defendants, the Cuyahoga County Defendants, and the Cleveland Clinic Defendants alleging violations of Ohio common law, federal law, and their constitutional rights, stemming from Defendants' actions during the February 19, 2007 incident and subsequent conduct in obtaining privileged medical records in violation of Plaintiffs' privacy rights. (Doc. 1.) On March 26, 2009, the Cleveland Clinic Defendants filed an answer stating that all claims against them should be dismissed because the only allegations against them relate to their appropriate response to a valid state court grand jury subpoena. (Doc. 6.) Subsequently, on April 3, 2009, the Cleveland Clinic Defendants filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. (Doc. 9.)
At the Case Management Conference held on April 23, 2009, the Court ordered the Plaintiffs to file an Amended Complaint for purposes of clarifying the factual and legal bases of the claims against eachDefendant in each of the Counts of the Complaint. ( See Doc. 13 at ¶ 15.) The Court further noted that the Cleveland Clinic Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings was termed as moot without prejudice, subject to re-filing after the Amended Complaint was filed. ( Id.)
On May 22, 2009, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint asserting seven (7) counts against the four groups of Defendants. (Doc. 14.) The primary allegations against the Cleveland Clinic Defendants are set forth in the Second and Third...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re A.M.
...court's order enforcing the subpoena requiring Thomas to testify, therefore, does not violate HIPAA. See, e.g., Turk v. Oiler, 732 F.Supp.2d 758, 770–71 (N.D.Ohio 2010) (concluding Ohio statute allowing disclosure in specific circumstances is more stringent than HIPAA and therefore not pree......
-
Roxy Home Improvement, LLC v. Mercedes-Benz United States, LLC
...In ruling on a Rule 12(c) motion, courts consider all available pleadings, including the complaint and the answer. Turk v. Oiler,732 F. Supp.2d 758, 764 (N.D. Ohio 2010). Courts may also consider any documents attached to, incorporated by, or referred to in the pleadings. Id. Federal Rule o......
-
Marcum v. Scioto Cnty.
...the Scioto County defendants cite to Roe v. Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region, 912 N.E.2d 61 (Ohio 2009) and Turk v. Oiler, 732 F. Supp.2d 758 (N.D. Ohio 2010), where the Ohio Supreme Court and the District Court for the Northern District of Ohio held that non-party medical records w......
-
Franklin v. FirstEnergy Corp.
...if not explicitly incorporated by reference; (3) public records; and (4) matters of which the court may take judicial notice. Turk v. Oiler, 732 F.Supp.2d 758 (citing Whittiker v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., 605 F.Supp.2d 914, 924-25 (N.D. Ohio 2009); Greenberg v. Life Ins. Co., 177 F......