Justia Health Law Opinion Summaries

The case revolves around a public-records request made by Randy Ludlow, a reporter for the Columbus Dispatch, to the Ohio Department of Health (ODH). Ludlow requested a digital spreadsheet copy of the Electronic Death Registration System (EDRS) database, which contains information for all death certificates delivered to ODH. While ODH provided a spreadsheet with details such as decedents’ sex, age, race, birth date, marital status, and date, time, place, manner, and cause of death, it withheld the names and addresses of the decedents, claiming that this information was exempt from disclosure under R.C. 3701.17 as "protected health information."The Court of Claims initially ordered ODH to provide the requested records, arguing that the information was not exempt from disclosure as it was public information under a different statute, R.C. 3705.23(A). However, the Tenth District Court of Appeals reversed this decision, holding that the names and addresses of the decedents, when combined with their causes of death, were properly withheld as protected health information.The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the judgment of the Tenth District Court of Appeals. The court held that the names and addresses of a decedent, when combined with information regarding his or her cause of death, are protected health information under R.C. 3701.17 and are not subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act. The court noted that while this information may be obtainable under other statutes, those statutes require the requester to satisfy certain requirements before they may receive the information requested. View "Ludlow v. Ohio Dept. of Health" on Justia Law

The case involves appellant Soleiman Mobarak, who appealed the judgment of the Tenth District Court of Appeals dismissing his petition for a writ of mandamus against appellee, Franklin County Court of Common Pleas Judge Jeffrey M. Brown. Mobarak had sought to vacate his criminal convictions for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction in the trial court. The court of appeals held that the trial court had jurisdiction over Mobarak’s criminal case and that Mobarak had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.In 2012, Mobarak was indicted on charges of engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity, aggravated trafficking in drugs, and aggravated possession of drugs. The charges alleged that Mobarak had possessed and sold a controlled-substance analog commonly known as bath salts. In his petition, Mobarak asserted that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over his criminal case on several grounds including that there was no statute prohibiting the possession or sale of bath salts at the time his offenses were alleged to have occurred, and that the controlled-substance-analogs law was unconstitutionally vague.The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the Tenth District Court of Appeals' judgment dismissing Mobarak’s petition. The court held that Mobarak’s petition failed to state a mandamus claim because he had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law and failed to show that the trial court had patently and unambiguously lacked jurisdiction over his criminal case. The court found that by virtue of the Ohio Constitution and R.C. 2931.03, the trial court had jurisdiction over Mobarak’s criminal case. The court also noted that Mobarak’s arguments were similar to those raised and rejected in his prior appeals. The court stated that extraordinary writs may not be used as a substitute for an otherwise barred second appeal or to gain successive appellate reviews of the same issue. View "State ex rel. Mobarak v. Brown" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the court of appeals in this case challenging the constitutionality of the Ohio Liquor Control Commission's emergency rule that was adopted as part of the state's initial response to the COVID-19 pandemic, holding that this appeal and the underlying case were moot.The Commission cited Appellant for violating Rule 80, which was adopted through the emergency procedures prescribed under Ohio Rev. Code 119.03(G). Appellant appealed the order and then initiated a separate civil action for declaratory judgment challenging the constitutionality of the rule. Rule 80 then expired. The trial court dismissed the declaratory judgment action because of the pending administrative appeal. The appellate court affirmed. The Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals' judgment, holding that this case was moot. View "Highland Tavern, L.L.C. v. DeWine" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the judgment of the trial court concluding that Acuity, an insurer, did not owe Masters Pharmaceutical, Inc. a duty to defend it in the several lawsuits brought by cities and counties in three states (the governments) for losses caused by the opioid epidemic, holding that Acuity did not owe Masters a duty to defend.Cities and counties in West Virginia, Michigan, and Nevada brought the underlying lawsuits against Masters, a wholesale distributor of pharmaceutical products, including prescription opioids, alleging that Masters's conduct contributed to the opioid epidemic. Acuity filed an action for a declaratory judgment that it owed no duty to defend or indemnify Masters in the underlying suits. The trial court granted summary judgment for Acuity. The court of appeals reversed. At issue was whether the governments sought damages for their own economic losses and not "damages because of bodily injury." The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the governments did not seek "damages because of bodily injury"; and (2) therefore, Acuity did not owe Masters a duty to defend it in the underlying suits. View "Acuity v. Masters Pharmaceuticals, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that a trial court lacks discretion to deny a request for a recommended change in the commitment conditions of a mentally ill person subject to court-ordered commitment to a mental health facility when the state has failed to present clear and convincing evidence that the change represents a threat to public safety or any person.Appellant was found not guilty by reason of insanity of murder, tampering with evidence, and abuse of a corpse. The trial court ordered Appellant committed to a mental health facility. The chief clinical officer at the facility later filed a request with the trial court asking that Appellant be allowed to leave the facility to go on trips (Level IV community movement). The trial court denied the request, and the appellate court affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the appellate court erred in concluding that the trial court had discretion to deny the requested change in Appellant's commitment level even if the state failed to meet its burden of proof. View "State v. Stutler" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the court of appeals affirming the denial by the court of common pleas of Appellants' motion to dismiss concluding that immunity from liability afforded to mental-health providers under Ohio Rev. Code 2305.51 did not apply in this case, holding that the trial court's order denying Appellants' motion to dismiss was not a final, appealable order, and therefore, the court of appeals lacked jurisdiction to issue its judgment.In overruling Appellants' motion to dismiss the trial court concluded that immunity from liability afforded to mental-health providers under section 2305.51 did not apply in this case. The court of appeals affirmed, rejecting Appellants' argument that the trial court erred in holding that Appellants were not entitled to statutory immunity under section 2305.51. The Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals' judgment, holding that the appellate court lacked jurisdiction where the trial court's entry denying Appellants' motion to dismiss was not a final, appealable order. View "Stewart v. Solutions Community Counseling & Recovery Centers, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted the motion to dismiss this complaint brought by Relator, Ohio Stands Up!, Inc., seeking writs of prohibition and mandamus against Respondents, the Ohio Governor and the Director of the Office of Budget and Management, holding that Relator lacked standing to bring this original action.In its prayer for relief, Relator argued that the lottery entailing the expenditure of over $5 million to encourage Ohio residents to receive COVID-19 vaccinations was unconstitutional and discriminatory and sought to prevent Respondents from both spending the money on the lottery and from injecting the vaccines into Ohio's children. Respondents filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that Relator lacked standing. The Supreme Court agreed and granted the motion, holding that Relator failed to establish that it had standing to seeking a writ of prohibition or writ of mandamus in this original action. View "State ex rel. Ohio Stands Up!, Inc. v. DeWine" on Justia Law

In this case involving the interplay between the Health Insurance Portability and accountability Act (HIPPA), the subsequent HIPPA Privacy Rule, and Ohio's common-law cause of action for the unauthorized, unprivileged disclosure by a medical provider to a third party of nonpublic medical information recognized in Biddle v. Warrant General Hospital, 715 N.E.2d 518 (Ohio 1999), the Supreme Court held that the patient in this case failed to state a claim under Biddle.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) HIPAA does not preclude a claim under Biddle when the limited disclosure of medical information was part of a court filing made to obtain a past-due payment on an account for medical services; (2) there is an exception to liability under Biddle when a medical provider makes a reasonable effort to limit the disclosure of the patient's medical information to the minimum amount necessary to file a complaint for the recovery of unpaid medical services charges; and (3) the medical provider in this case properly limited its closure of information to the minimum amount necessary to assert a cause of action to recover from the patient payment for unpaid medical bills. View "Menorah Park Center for Senior Living v. Rolston" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals reversing the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Cora Sue Bell and concluding that Embassy Healthcare could pursue its claim against Cora individually under Ohio Rev. Code 3103.03, Ohio’s necessaries statute, and was not required to present its claim to the estate of her deceased husband, Robert Bell, holding that a creditor’s failure to present its claim for unpaid expenses to a decedent’s estate within the six-month statute of limitations in Ohio Rev. Code 2117.06 bars a later action against the decedent’s surviving spouse under section 3103.03.The court of appeals concluded that Embassy could pursue its claim for Robert’s unpaid nursing-facility expenses against Cora individually under section 3103.03 and was not required to present its claim first to Robert’s estate under section 2117.06. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that a creditor must present its claim for unpaid necessaries to the decedent’s estate under Ohio Rev. Code 2117.06 before it can pursue a claim individually against the surviving spouse under section 3103.03. View "Embassy Healthcare v. Bell" on Justia Law

Appellant was the defendant in a criminal case in which he was found not guilty by reason of insanity and found to be a mentally ill person subject to hospitalization by court order. In 2014, Appellant filed a motion asserting that the trial court lacked authority to order his original commitment. The trial court denied relief, and Appellant appealed. In 2015, Appellant filed a motion to terminate his involuntary confinement. The trial court stayed the action pending the outcome of Appellant’s appeal from the denial of the 2014 motion. Thereafter, Appellant filed a petition for writs of mandamus and procedendo requesting that the trial court judge be ordered either to grant or hold a hearing on the 2015 motion. The court of appeals ultimately affirmed the trial court’s denial of the 2014 motion. In 2016, the court of appeals dismissed Appellant’s petition for writs of mandamus and procedendo, concluding that the request for a writ of procedendo was moot and that the judge had not abused his discretion in issuing the stay. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the case was moot, and the the trial court did not err in failing to consider the 2015 motion earlier. View "State ex rel. Rohrer v. Holzapfel" on Justia Law