Wolfe v. Ohio Dep't Of Rehab.
| Decision Date | 16 December 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 10AP-443,C.C. No. 2007-08902,10AP-443 |
| Citation | 2010 Ohio 6180 |
| Parties | Ronald Wolfe, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
DECISION
Swope and Swope-Attorneys at Law, and Richard F. Swope, for appellant.
Richard Cordray, Attorney General, and Douglas R. Folkert, for appellee.
APPEAL from the Court of Claims of Ohio.
FRENCH, J.
{¶1} Plaintiff-appellant, Ronald Wolfe ("appellant"), appeals the judgment of the Court of Claims of Ohio, which adopted a magistrate's decision recommending judgment in favor of defendant-appellee, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction ("ODRC"). For the following reasons, we reverse.
{¶2} Appellant is an inmate under the control of ODRC. On November 26, 2007, he filed a complaint against ODRC, alleging that he is a disabled person entitled to protection and benefits under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12132, et seq. ("ADA"). He alleged that, while working the prison kitchen and while medicated, disabled, fatigued, and ill, he fell and injured himself. His injuries, he alleged, were the proximate result of ODRC's negligence. He sought damages in the amount of $500,000.
{¶3} A trial on liability was held before a magistrate. The magistrate issued a decision in December 2009 and rendered judgment in favor of ODRC.
{¶4} On February 5, 2010, appellant filed objections to the magistrate's decision. Appellant also moved to extend time for filing an affidavit of evidence pursuant to Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iii). Appellant argued that he should be permitted to file an affidavit because a trial transcript was unavailable to him due to his indigency.
{¶5} On April 9, 2010, appellant filed an affidavit of evidence. The affidavit described the testimony and evidence before the magistrate.
{¶6} On May 26, 2010, the court filed a judgment entry. The court denied appellant's request for an extension of time in which to file an affidavit of evidence and struck appellant's affidavit from the record. The court overruled appellant's objections to the magistrate's findings of fact because those objections were not supported by a transcript. The court also overruled appellant's objections to the magistrate's legal conclusions concerning the applicability of the ADA and appellant's entitlement to accommodations under the ADA. The court entered judgment in favor of ODRC.
{¶7} Appellant filed a timely appeal. He raises the following assignments of error:
{¶8} We begin with appellant's first assignment of error, in which he contends the trial court erred by denying his request to file an affidavit of evidence. We agree.
{¶9} Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b) governs objections to a magistrate's decision. Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iii) provides, in part, as follows:
{¶10} App.R. 9(C) addresses the record on appeal and similarly provides, in pertinent part: "If no report of the evidence or proceedings at a hearing or trial was made, or if a transcript is unavailable, the appellant may prepare a statement of the evidence or proceedings from the best available means, including the appellant's recollection."
{¶11} The Supreme Court of Ohio has addressed the meaning of "unavailable" for purposes of App.R. 9(C) and rejected the contention that "unavailable" refers only to physical unavailability. See State ex rel. Motley v. Capers (1986), 23 Ohio St.3d 56. Stating that an App.R. 9(C) narrative statement "is an available, reliable alternative" to an appellant who cannot afford a transcript, the court held that "a transcript is unavailable for the purposes of App.R. 9(C) to an indigent appellant unable to bear the cost of providing a transcript." Id. at 58. The Supreme Court reasoned that defining "unavailable" for purposes of App.R. 9(C) as only physically unobtainable "would significantly limit the indigent appellant's right to appeal." Id. The court based its conclusion on civil litigants' statutory right to appeal an adverse judgment from a lower court, coupled with the requirement that the appealing party, in order to exercise that right, must ensure that the trial court transcript is sent to the court of appeals for review.
{¶12} On June 29, 2010, this court rendered a decision in Gill v. Grafton Correctional Inst., 10th Dist. No. 09AP-1019, 2010-Ohio-2977. In Gill, the Court of Claims had denied an inmate's request to submit a statement under App.R. 9(C) in lieu of a transcript. Like appellant here, Gill contended that a transcript was "unavailable" to him because he could not afford to pay for it. While Gill made his request to the trialcourt under App.R. 9(C)—a rule that does not apply to trial court proceedings—the trial court referred to Civ.R. 53(D) in its denial of Gill's request.
{¶13} Relying on Motley, this court held that the trial court erred by concluding that the transcript of the liability trial before the magistrate was available, thus precluding Gill from utilizing an alternative method of putting the evidence before the court for purposes of ruling on Gill's objections to the magistrate's factual findings. We reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case to the Court of Claims for a determination...
To continue reading
Request your trial