Title: State ex rel. Woods v. Oak Hill Community Med. Ctr.

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as State ex rel. Woods v. Oak Hill Community Med. Ctr, 91 Ohio St.3d 459, 
2001-Ohio-96.] 
 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. WOODS, APPELLANT, v. OAK HILL COMMUNITY MEDICAL 
CENTER, INC., APPELLEE. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Woods v. Oak Hill Community Med. Ctr. (2001), 91 Ohio 
St.3d 459.] 
Torts — Medical malpractice action — Judgment entered in favor of defendants 
— Request for oral argument before Supreme Court denied, when — 
Mandamus sought to compel hospital to, inter alia, identify all persons 
upon whom CK-MB% blood enzyme results were erroneously reported 
as being within the normal range for the test — Court of appeals’ 
dismissal of mandamus action affirmed. 
(No. 00-1616 — Submitted March 27, 2001 — Decided May 23, 2001.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Jackson County, No. 99CA854. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  In the early morning of April 5, 1995, appellant, Donald 
Woods, went to the emergency room of appellee, Oak Hill Community Medical 
Center (“Oak Hill”), a hospital located in Oak Hill, Ohio, complaining of chest 
pain.  Several tests were performed on Woods, including a CK-MB% blood 
enzyme test. 
 
The CK-MB% blood enzyme test is used to determine if a patient is 
experiencing a heart attack.  A normal test result is less than four percent, and an 
abnormal test result is between four and twenty-five percent.  A result in the range 
between four and twenty-five percent is indicative of a heart attack.  The initial 
CK-MB% test result for Woods was 12.2 percent, which was erroneously listed as 
being within the normal range of four to twenty-five percent on Oak Hill’s report 
form.  Woods stayed overnight at Oak Hill, but he was subsequently transferred to 
Mount Carmel Medical Center in Columbus for further treatment. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
In 1996, Woods filed a medical malpractice action in the Jackson County 
Court of Common Pleas against several defendants, including Oak Hill.  While 
the case was pending, a cardiologist employed by Woods as an expert in the 
malpractice case discovered the lab reports misstating the normal range for the 
CK-MB% blood enzyme test.  In June 1996, the cardiologist informed Oak Hill of 
this mistake.  The common pleas court denied Woods’s request for the names and 
addresses of all Oak Hill patients who had the CK-MB% test performed upon 
them during the period when Oak Hill’s forms contained the error. 
 
In January 1998, the jury returned verdicts in favor of the defendants and 
against Woods in his medical malpractice action.  The jury determined that 
although Oak Hill had been negligent, its negligence did not directly and 
proximately cause Woods’s injuries and damages.  In February 1998, the common 
pleas court entered judgment in favor of the defendants. 
 
Before the trial in his medical malpractice action, Woods filed a separate 
class action for injunctive relief to compel Oak Hill to notify those patients who 
had been administered CK-MB% testing at Oak Hill from September 1993 
through June 1996 and had results between four and twenty-five percent.  The 
common pleas court dismissed the action because Woods, who had already 
received notice of his inaccurate CK-MB% report form, lacked the requisite 
standing to maintain the action.  On appeal, the court of appeals affirmed the 
dismissal.  Woods v. Oak Hill Community Med. Ctr. (1999), 134 Ohio App.3d 
261, 730 N.E.2d 1037. 
 
In December 1999, Woods filed a complaint in the Court of Appeals for 
Jackson County.  In his complaint, as subsequently amended, Woods requested a 
writ of mandamus to compel Oak Hill to immediately identify all persons upon 
whom the CK-MB% test was conducted from September 1993 through June 1996 
and notify those persons whose test results were erroneously reported as being 
within the normal range for the test.  In addition, Woods requested that a writ of 
January Term, 2001 
3 
mandamus issue to compel Oak Hill to notify the Ohio Department of Health of 
all information necessary to correct its prior disclosures required by R.C. 3727.11 
to 3727.13 and to comply with R.C. 3727.14, and to compel Oak Hill to organize 
its medical records to comply with regulations of the Joint Commission on 
Accreditation of Hospitals.  Oak Hill filed a motion to dismiss.  The court of 
appeals subsequently entered a judgment granting Oak Hill’s motion and 
dismissing Woods’s mandamus action. 
 
This cause is now before the court upon an appeal as of right as well as 
Woods’s request for oral argument. 
Oral Argument 
 
Woods requests oral argument “pursuant to Rule of Practice IX, Section 2 
of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio.”  We deny Woods’s 
request for the following reasons. 
 
First, S.Ct.Prac.R. IX(2) does not require oral argument in this appeal.  
See S.Ct.Prac.R. IX(2)(A). 
 
Second, Woods has neither established nor asserted any of the usual 
factors that might warrant oral argument.  See State ex rel. Abner v. Elliott (1999), 
85 Ohio St.3d 11, 15-16, 706 N.E.2d 765, 769.  This case involves no substantial 
constitutional issue, conflict between courts of appeals, or complex issues of law 
or fact. 
 
Third, Woods does not specify why oral argument would be beneficial 
here.  State ex rel. Lee v. Trumbull Cty. Probate Court (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 369, 
371, 700 N.E.2d 4, 7.  The parties’ briefs are sufficient to resolve the issues 
raised.  State ex rel. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Commrs. v. Ohio Environmental Protection 
Agency (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 166, 169, 724 N.E.2d 411, 415. 
 
Based on the foregoing, we deny Woods’s request for oral argument. 
Mandamus 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
Woods asserts that the court of appeals erred in dismissing his mandamus 
action.  Dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can 
be granted is appropriate if, after all factual allegations of the complaint are 
presumed true and all reasonable inferences are made in relator’s favor, it appears 
beyond doubt that relator can prove no set of facts entitling relator to the 
requested extraordinary relief.  State ex rel. Lanham v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. 
(1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 425, 426, 687 N.E.2d 283, 284. 
 
In order to be entitled to the requested relief in mandamus, Woods must 
prove a clear legal right to the requested acts, a corresponding clear legal duty on 
the part of Oak Hill to perform these acts, and the absence of a plain and adequate 
remedy in the ordinary course of law.  State ex rel. Sekermestrovich v. Akron 
(2001), 90 Ohio St.3d 536, 537, 740 N.E.2d 252, 254. 
 
In his preeminent claim, Woods seeks a writ of mandamus to compel Oak 
Hill to identify and notify patients of lab reports misstating the normal range for 
CK-MB% blood enzyme testing.  Woods alleged in his amended complaint that 
Oak Hill had a “duty to disclose this material information to its patients under 
applicable law, compelling public policy, and common morality.” Woods initially 
relies on precedent from medical malpractice cases as well as ethical regulations 
adopted by the American Medical Association and the American Osteopathic 
Association. 
 
Woods’s claim is meritless.  Certainly, a duty for negligence purposes 
may be established by common law, through a legislative enactment, or by the 
particular facts and circumstances of the case.  Chambers v. St. Mary’s School 
(1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 563, 565, 697 N.E.2d 198, 201.  But in mandamus 
proceedings, the creation of the legal duty that a relator seeks to enforce is the 
distinct function of the legislative branch of government.  State ex rel. Brettrager 
v. Newburgh Hts. (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 272, 274, 730 N.E.2d 981, 983; State ex 
rel. Governor v. Taft (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 1, 3-4, 640 N.E.2d 1136, 1138.  
January Term, 2001 
5 
Courts are not authorized to create the legal duty enforceable in mandamus.  
Davis v. State ex rel. Pecsok (1936), 130 Ohio St. 411, 5 O.O. 20, 200 N.E. 181, 
paragraph one of the syllabus; State ex rel. Stanley v. Cook (1946), 146 Ohio St. 
348, 32 O.O. 419, 66 N.E.2d 207, paragraph eight of the syllabus. 
 
Therefore, the malpractice and fraud cases cited by Woods in support of 
his mandamus action are inapposite.  See, e.g., Gaines v. Preterm-Cleveland, Inc. 
(1987), 33 Ohio St.3d 54, 514 N.E.2d 709; Meinze v. Holmes (1987), 40 Ohio 
App.3d 143, 532 N.E.2d 170; Turner v. Children’s Hosp., Inc. (1991), 76 Ohio 
App.3d 541, 602 N.E.2d 423.  Further, the medical ethical regulations adopted by 
the American Medical Association and the American Osteopathic Association do 
not create a cognizable duty on the part of Oak Hill in mandamus.  In addition, the 
precedent and ethical rules that Woods relies upon specify duties of physicians 
rather than hospitals. 
 
Similarly, Woods’s request that Oak Hill organize medical records in 
order to comply with the regulations of the Joint Commission on Accreditation of 
Hospitals is not cognizable in mandamus because these regulations are not 
legislatively created.  Brettrager, 89 Ohio St.3d at 274, 730 N.E.2d at 983; Davis, 
130 Ohio St. 411, 5 O.O. 20, 200 N.E. 181, paragraph one of the syllabus. 
 
Woods does cite some statutes as well as an administrative rule adopted 
under statutory authority in support of his request for extraordinary relief in 
mandamus.  Neither R.C. 3727.11, 3727.13, nor Ohio Adm.Code Section 3701-
14-01, however, imposes a duty on Oak Hill to perform any of the requested acts, 
including identifying and notifying former patients who had tested between four 
and twenty-five percent on the CK-MB% blood enzyme test.  These provisions 
required only that Oak Hill disclose to the State Health Department and its 
director data concerning the one hundred most frequently treated diagnosis-
related groups of patients and permitted Oak Hill to include commentary for 
major deviations in the data ranges for any diagnosis-related group.  Mandamus 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
will issue neither to compel duties that Oak Hill is not “specifically enjoined to 
perform” nor to require the performance of a permissive act.  (Emphasis added.)  
See State ex rel. Hodges v. Taft (1992), 64 Ohio St.3d 1, 6-7, 591 N.E.2d 1186, 
1191.  And when a hospital fails to comply with R.C. 3727.11, the General 
Assembly has empowered the Director of Health to apply for injunctive relief in 
common pleas court.  R.C. 3727.16. 
 
Moreover, a writ of mandamus will not be issued if there is a plain and 
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.  R.C. 2731.05; State ex rel. 
Wilke v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Commrs. (2000), 90 Ohio St.3d 55, 64, 734 N.E.2d 
811, 820.  To the extent that Woods’s mandamus action could be construed as an 
attempt to challenge the lower courts’ rulings on his identification and notification 
claims in his previous medical malpractice and injunction cases, mandamus will 
not lie to relitigate these issues.  See State ex rel. Smith v. Fuerst (2000), 89 Ohio 
St.3d 456, 457, 732 N.E.2d 983, 985.  Extraordinary writs may not be used to gain 
successive appellate reviews of the same issue.  State ex rel. Smith v. O’Connor 
(1995), 71 Ohio St.3d 660, 663, 646 N.E.2d 1115, 1118. 
 
Based on the foregoing, it appears beyond doubt that Woods could prove 
no set of facts entitling him to the requested writ of mandamus.  Therefore, 
dismissal was appropriate.  Given this disposition, we need not determine whether 
Woods had the requisite standing to bring this mandamus action, i.e., whether he 
asserts a sufficient public right under State ex rel. Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers 
v. Sheward (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 451, 715 N.E.2d 1062, paragraph one of the 
syllabus.  For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the court of 
appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
January Term, 2001 
7 
 
Cole & Lewis, Richard M. Lewis and Jonathan D. Blanton, for appellant. 
 
Reminger & Reminger Co., L.P.A., and Gwenn S. Karr, for appellee. 
__________________