Case Title: State ex rel. Mulholland v. Schweikert

Citation: 2003-Ohio-3650

Docket Number: 20022061

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2003-07-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as State ex rel. Mulholland v. Schweikert, 99 Ohio St.3d 291, 2003-Ohio-3650.] 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. MULHOLLAND, APPELLANT, v. SCHWEIKERT, JUDGE, ET 
AL., APPELLEES. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Mulholland v. Schweikert, 99 Ohio St.3d 291, 2003-Ohio-
3650.] 
Prohibition — Writ prohibiting judge of common pleas court from forcing 
relator to produce copies of relator’s civil-commitment file and to sign 
releases for medical records arising from relator’s civil commitment — 
Court of appeals’ denial of writ affirmed. 
(No. 2002-2061 — Submitted May 13, 2003 — Decided July 23, 2003.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, No. C-020603. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
Appellant, Daniel B. Mulholland, is an attorney who was a 
member of the law partnership Mulholland, Heekin & Heekin with appellees 
attorneys Christopher R. Heekin and Thomas Heekin Jr.  In August 2001, the 
Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas, Probate Division, committed 
Mulholland to a hospital upon an affidavit asserting that he was a danger to 
himself and others and had engaged in irrational and violent behavior.  According 
to Mulholland, the affidavit was false and was procured through the machinations 
of Thomas Heekin Jr.  Shortly thereafter, the probate court released Mulholland 
from his involuntary hospitalization. 
{¶2} 
In October 2001, the Heekins filed a complaint in the General 
Division of the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas alleging that 
Mulholland was incapable of practicing law in a competent manner and that he 
had removed certain client files from the partnership’s office.  The Heekins 
requested injunctive relief to prevent Mulholland from entering the office or 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
contacting partnership clients, damages for Mulholland’s alleged breach of his 
fiduciary duties, and a dissolution of the partnership.  Mulholland subsequently 
filed an answer and counterclaims alleging abuse of process, civil conversion, 
intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, breach of fiduciary duty, 
malicious prosecution, tortious interference with contract, invasion of privacy, 
defamation, unjust enrichment, and conspiracy. 
{¶3} 
In August 2002, appellee Common Pleas Judge Mark R. 
Schweikert ordered Mulholland “to execute releases of his medical and 
psychiatric records and produce records pertaining to [his] involuntary 
hospitalization proceedings.” 
{¶4} 
After Mulholland refused to comply with the discovery order, the 
Heekins moved for sanctions, and Mulholland moved for reconsideration and for 
a protective order concerning the probate court records.  In September 2002, 
Judge Schweikert granted the Heekins’ motion for sanctions and denied 
Mulholland’s motions for reconsideration and for a protective order.  Judge 
Schweikert ordered Mulholland to produce all documents in his possession 
concerning “any and all of his mental health, psychiatric and psychological 
evaluations, assessments, diagnoses, prognoses, hospitalizations, treatment, and 
care” and “his involuntary hospitalization for mental illness.”  Judge Schweikert 
further ordered Mulholland to “execute written consents to release of medical, 
psychiatric and psychological records in any form by those professionals and 
institutions designated by Plaintiffs.” 
{¶5} 
In September 2002, Mulholland filed a complaint in the Court of 
Appeals for Hamilton County for a writ of prohibition to prevent Judge 
Schweikert from forcing him to produce copies of his civil-commitment file and 
to sign releases for medical records arising from his civil commitment.  
Mulholland also named the Heekins as respondents.  Mulholland claimed that 
under R.C. 5122.141(C), the probate court had expunged all of his civil 
January Term, 2003 
3 
commitment records and that Judge Schweikert lacked jurisdiction to modify the 
expungement order. 
{¶6} 
Judge Schweikert answered the complaint and moved for summary 
judgment.  The Heekins moved to dismiss the complaint.  The court of appeals 
subsequently granted Judge Schweikert’s motion, denied the writ, and dismissed 
the Heekins as respondents. 
{¶7} 
This case is now before the court upon Mulholland’s appeal as of 
right.1 
Prohibition 
{¶8} 
Mulholland asserts that the court of appeals erred in denying the 
writ of prohibition.  Mulholland claims that Judge Schweikert lacked jurisdiction 
to issue discovery orders forcing him to provide access to records pertaining to his 
involuntary hospitalization, based on R.C. 5122.31 and 5122.01(R). 
{¶9} 
“In the absence of a patent and unambiguous lack of jurisdiction, a 
court having general subject-matter jurisdiction can determine its own 
jurisdiction, and a party challenging that jurisdiction is not entitled to a writ of 
prohibition because of the availability of an adequate remedy at law by appeal.”  
State ex rel. Ragozine v. Shaker, 96 Ohio St.3d 201, 2002-Ohio-3992, 772 N.E.2d 
1192, ¶ 7. 
{¶10} Judge Schweikert did not patently and unambiguously lack 
jurisdiction to issue the challenged orders here.  Although R.C. 5122.31 prohibits 
the disclosure of all records made for the purposes of R.C. Chapter 51222 that 
directly identify a patient when hospitalization was sought under the chapter, this 
prohibition is subject to several exceptions.  One exception is disclosure 
“[p]ursuant to a court order signed by a judge.”  R.C. 5122.31(D).  Admittedly, 
                                                 
1. 
We deny Mulholland’s request for oral argument. 
 
2. 
R.C. Chapter 5122 involves the hospitalization of mentally ill persons. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
R.C. 5122.01(Q) defines “court” as used in R.C. Chapter 5122 to mean the 
probate court. 
{¶11} Nevertheless, R.C. 5122.31(D) refers to “a court order signed by a 
judge,” rather than “the court order.”  (Emphasis added.)  “The word ‘a’ is an 
indefinite article that denotes a thing not previously noted or recognized, in 
contrast with ‘the,’ which denotes a thing previously noted or recognized.”  In re 
Collier (1993), 85 Ohio App.3d 232, 237, 619 N.E.2d 503; R.C. 1.42.  Therefore, 
R.C. 5122.31(D) could refer to nonprobate court orders as well as probate court 
orders.  In fact, in State v. Hall (2001), 141 Ohio App.3d 561, 569-570, 752 
N.E.2d 318, the court relied on this exception to uphold an order of a common 
pleas court. 
{¶12} Nor did R.C. 5122.141(C) and 5122.01(R) patently and 
unambiguously divest Judge Schweikert of jurisdiction.  R.C. 5122.141(C) 
requires a probate court that finds that a respondent is not a mentally ill person 
subject to hospitalization by court order to order the respondent’s immediate 
discharge and expunge all record of the commitment proceedings.  R.C. 
5122.01(R) defines “expunge” to mean, among other things, “[t]he removal and 
destruction of court files and records, originals and copies, and the deletion of all 
index references.”  (Emphasis added.)  As appellees note, the records ordered 
disclosed by Judge Schweikert were not probate court records. 
{¶13} Therefore, in the absence of a patent and unambiguous lack of 
jurisdiction, Mulholland had an adequate remedy by immediate appeal from 
Judge Schweikert’s orders.  See, e.g., State ex rel. Butler Cty. Children Services 
Bd. v. Sage (2002), 95 Ohio St.3d 23, 25, 764 N.E.2d 1027; Covington v. 
MetroHealth Sys., 150 Ohio App.3d 558, 2002-Ohio-6629, 782 N.E.2d 624, ¶ 20 
(trial court’s decision that plaintiff is not entitled to a protective order for 
allegedly statutorily privileged records is a final appealable order).  By so holding, 
we do not expressly decide the underlying substantive issues raised by 
January Term, 2003 
5 
Mulholland, because our review is limited to determining whether Judge 
Schweikert patently and unambiguously lacked jurisdiction.  State ex rel. Hummel 
v. Sadler, 96 Ohio St.3d 84, 2002-Ohio-3605, 771 N.E.2d 853, ¶ 32. 
{¶14} Moreover, as we have repeatedly held, “ ‘trial courts have the 
requisite jurisdiction to decide issues of privilege; thus, extraordinary relief in 
prohibition will not lie to correct any errors in decisions of these issues.’ ”  State 
ex rel. Abner v. Elliott (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 11, 16, 706 N.E.2d 765, quoting 
State ex rel. Herdman v. Watson (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 537, 538, 700 N.E.2d 
1270.  Courts have referred to R.C. 5122.31 records as privileged materials.  See, 
e.g., Hanly v. Riverside Methodist Hosp. Found., Inc. (1991), 71 Ohio App.3d 
778, 782, 595 N.E.2d 429. 
{¶15} Accordingly, the court of appeals did not err in denying the writ.  
Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON and 
O’CONNOR, JJ., concur. 
 
COOK, J., not participating. 
__________________ 
 
Croskery & Associates Co., L.P.A., and Robert F. Croskery, for appellant. 
 
Michael K. Allen, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, David T. 
Stevenson and Joseph M. Huston, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, for appellee 
Judge Schweikert. 
 
Taft, Stettinius & Hollsiter, L.L.P., and Raymond W. Lembke, for 
appellees Christopher R. Heekin and Thomas D. Heekin Jr. 
__________________