[Cite as MacConnell v. London Corr. Inst., 2011-Ohio-1846.]

Court of Claims of Ohio

The Ohio Judicial Center 

65 South Front Street, Third Floor 

Columbus, OH 43215 

614.387.9800 or 1.800.824.8263 

www.cco.state.oh.us

RION T. MACCONNELL 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

LONDON CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION 

 Defendant 

Case No. 2008-10528 

Judge Clark B. Weaver Sr. 

DECISION

{¶ 1} Plaintiff brought this action alleging unauthorized disclosure of his medical 

information. The issues of liability and damages were bifurcated and the case 

proceeded to trial on the issue of liability. 

{¶ 2} At all times relevant, plaintiff was an inmate in the custody and control of 

defendant pursuant to R.C. 5120.16. Plaintiff testified that when he entered defendant’s 

custody in 2006, he had been taking prescription medication for a pancreatic ailment for 

approximately three years. Plaintiff stated that a physician employed by defendant 

prescribed the same medication and that defendant refilled the prescription several 

times through early 2008. 

{¶ 3} According to plaintiff, he exhausted his supply of the medication in 

February 2008 and defendant failed to timely refill the prescription. Plaintiff filed a 

series of institutional complaints and grievances concerning the delay. (Plaintiff’s 

Exhibits 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8.) Plaintiff stated that he also asked his father, Robert 

MacConnell, to contact defendant by telephone and to determine whether MacConnell 
could purchase the medication at a private pharmacy and deliver it to plaintiff during 

visitation hours. 

{¶ 4} Indeed, MacConnell testified that he visited plaintiff weekly at the prison, 

and that plaintiff told him during one such visit in February 2008 that defendant was late 

in refilling his prescription medication. According to MacConnell, plaintiff asked him to 

contact defendant’s medical department and determine if anything could be done to get 

the prescription refilled in a more timely fashion. As a result, MacConnell placed a 

telephone call to defendant on or about February 22, 2008, and his call was directed to 

defendant’s Health Care Administrator, Karen Smith. 

{¶ 5} MacConnell testified that he informed Smith that he was concerned about 

plaintiff’s not receiving medication for his pancreatic ailment, and that Smith said she 

would research the matter and return his call. According to MacConnell, when Smith 

called him back, she stated that the medication which plaintiff needed was actually for 

treatment of his hepatitis; MacConnell could not recall whether Smith specified a 

particular type of hepatitis. MacConnell testified that he had no knowledge of plaintiff 

having hepatitis, and that it upset him to learn that plaintiff had the disease inasmuch as 

he was close with plaintiff and felt that plaintiff had kept this information from him. 

MacConnell stated that he sent plaintiff a letter asking about the matter and that plaintiff, 

in response, became upset and denied having hepatitis. 

{¶ 6} Plaintiff testified that he was indeed distressed by the episode and that it 

damaged his relationship with MacConnell. On March 24, 2008, plaintiff sent an 

informal “kite” to Deputy Warden of Special Services Curtis Wingard to complain about 

the alleged disclosure, and Wingard responded by asking for more information. 

(Plaintiff’s Exhibit 6.) On April 2, 2008, plaintiff sent another kite to Wingard and asked 

if an affidavit from MacConnell would be helpful to his investigation, and Wingard replied 

in the affirmative. (Plaintiff’s Exhibit 7.) On April 4, 2008, plaintiff forwarded a kite to 

Wingard with a supporting affidavit from MacConnell. (Plaintiff’s Exhibits 8, 11.) On 

April 10, 2008, plaintiff filed an informal complaint with Wingard in which he objected to 

his “medical info [being] given to a third party, without my knowledge or OK!” (Plaintiff’s 

Exhibit 10.) 
{¶ 7} Wingard, whose administrative duties included supervising defendant’s 

medical department, testified that he conducted an investigation into plaintiff’s 

allegations. Wingard stated that he questioned Smith about the matter twice, and that 

both times she denied disclosing plaintiff’s hepatitis status or other medical information 

to MacConnell. According to Wingard, he concluded from his investigation that Smith’s 

interaction with MacConnell was consistent with a Department of Rehabilitation and 

Correction (DRC) policy of telling family members who inquire about inmates’ medical 

information that all inmates receive adequate care and that details of such care cannot 

be disclosed. 

{¶ 8} Smith, who testified that she is now on disability leave from defendant, 

stated that she recalled having one brief conversation with MacConnell in which he 

expressed concern that plaintiff was not receiving an unspecified medication for an 

unspecified condition. According to Smith, she did not share any of plaintiff’s medical 

information with MacConnell and she told him only that she would look into the matter. 

Smith testified that, during her tenure as defendant’s Health Care Administrator, she 

commonly received calls from inmates’ family members regarding inmates’ health care, 

but that DRC policy on the confidentiality of medical records prohibited any disclosure of 

medical information. (Plaintiff’s Exhibit 3.) 

{¶ 9} “In Ohio, an independent tort exists for the unauthorized, unprivileged 

disclosure to a third party of nonpublic medical information that a physician or hospital 

has learned within a physician-patient relationship.” Biddle v. Warren Gen. Hosp., 86 

Ohio St.3d 395, 1999-Ohio-115, paragraph one of the syllabus. The Supreme Court of 

Ohio recognized the tort in Biddle based upon the policy that “[i]n general, a person’s 

medical records are confidential. Numerous state and federal laws recognize and 

protect an individual's interest in ensuring that his or her medical information remains 

so.” Hageman v. Southwest Gen. Health Ctr., 119 Ohio St.3d 185, 2008-Ohio-3343, ¶9. 

“Indeed, even a prison inmate’s personal medical records are qualifiedly protected from 

disclosure and are not ‘public’ records per se.” Wilson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 

(1991), 73 Ohio App.3d 496, 499. 

{¶ 10} The confidentiality of medical records is not absolute. In the absence of 

authorization “a physician or hospital is privileged to disclose otherwise confidential 
medical information in those special situations where disclosure is made in accordance 

with a statutory mandate or common-law duty, or where disclosure is necessary to 

protect or further a countervailing interest that outweighs the patient's interest in 

confidentiality.” Biddle, supra, at paragraph two of the syllabus. 

{¶ 11} Inmate medical records are compiled, maintained, and kept by defendant 

pursuant to R.C. 5145.22 and 5120.21. R.C. 5145.22 states, in part, that defendant’s 

“chief physician shall keep a separate medical record of each prisoner as provided in 

division (C) of section 5120.21 of the Revised Code.” “Medical record” is defined in 

R.C. 5120.21(C)(1) as “any document or combination of documents that pertains to the 

medical history, diagnosis, prognosis, or medical condition of a patient and that is 

generated and maintained in the process of medical treatment.” 

{¶ 12} “An inmate’s right to privacy [in his medical records] is not an absolute 

right nor necessarily equivalent to that of a non-incarcerated citizen.” Wilson, supra. 

Ohio Adm.Code 5120-9-49(F) provides that inmate medical records and other “[n]onpublic records of the [DRC] may, in the sole discretion of the director, or designee, be 

made available to counsel of record of an inmate or releasee, researchers, law 

enforcement agencies, or other persons with a need for access to such documents, 

subject to other restrictions on such access as may be provided by law.” “Thus, the 

disclosure of medical information may be protected by a qualified privilege predicated 

upon a ‘need to know’ or ‘need for access’ basis * * *.” (Internal citations omitted.) 

Wilson, supra, at 499-500; see also Hunt v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. (1991), 77 

Ohio App.3d 804, 807. 

{¶ 13} In accordance with R.C. 5145.22, defendant’s “chief physician” maintained 

a medical record for plaintiff which contained multiple documents stating that he has 

some type of hepatitis, at least one of which specifically identified him as having 

hepatitis C. Smith testified that these documents included a health history form that a 

nurse completed when plaintiff entered custody of DRC, an “intrasystem transfer and 

receiving” form that a nurse completed when plaintiff transferred to defendant from 

another DRC institution, and a “hepatitis C evaluation and treatment worksheet” that 

reflects vaccinations and other treatment received by plaintiff. (Defendant’s Exhibits C, 

D, E.) 
{¶ 14} Plaintiff explained that he does not believe he has any type of hepatitis, 

but that his medical record may have reflected otherwise because he receives periodic 

vaccinations for hepatitis C as a result of traveling abroad in the 1990s. Regardless, the 

evidence demonstrates that the medical professionals who assessed plaintiff’s condition 

at defendant and other DRC institutions compiled a corresponding medical record which 

reflects that he does have some type of hepatitis. 

{¶ 15} As stated earlier, Smith denied sharing any of plaintiff’s medical 

information with MacConnell when they spoke by telephone. In contrast, MacConnell 

testified that Smith told him that plaintiff had an unspecified type of hepatitis for which 

he had been prescribed medication. Based upon the totality of the evidence and upon 

consideration of each witnesses’ credibility, the court finds that Smith did inform 

MacConnell that plaintiff had an unspecified type of hepatitis. 

{¶ 16} The court concludes that the evidence presented at trial does not 

demonstrate that Smith’s disclosure to MacConnell accorded with any statutory 

mandate or common law duty, nor does it establish that such disclosure was necessary 

to protect or further a countervailing interest that outweighed plaintiff’s interest in 

confidentiality. Moreover, the evidence does not show that MacConnell had a legitimate 

“need to know” such information so as to render the disclosure privileged under Ohio 

Adm.Code 5120-9-49(F). Accordingly, the court can find no interest that would justify 

the recognition of a privilege under the circumstances of this case. 

{¶ 17} Furthermore, while plaintiff admittedly discussed certain aspects of his 

health with MacConnell and asked MacConnell to contact defendant in an attempt to 

facilitate more timely refills of his prescription for the pancreatic ailment, there is no 

evidence that plaintiff authorized any disclosure concerning his hepatitis status. 

Inmates may authorize the release of their medical records to a “licensed attorney at 

law or licensed physician” pursuant to R.C. 5120.21(C)(2), but plaintiff provided no such 

authorization, nor is MacConnell an attorney or physician. 

{¶ 18} Finally, to the extent that defendant argues that plaintiff asserts a 

constitutional claim for invasion of privacy over which this court lacks subject matter 

jurisdiction, the court notes that “[a]s is evident in Biddle * * * breach of a patient’s 

confidence in the form of an unauthorized disclosure of that patient’s medical 
information is an independent tort separate and distinct from the tort of invading one’s 

privacy.” Herman v. Kratche, Cuyahoga App. No. 86697, 2006-Ohio-5938, ¶16. 

{¶ 19} For the foregoing reasons, the court finds that plaintiff has proven his 

claim by a preponderance of the evidence and, accordingly, judgment shall be rendered 

in favor of plaintiff. 

Court of Claims of Ohio

The Ohio Judicial Center 

65 South Front Street, Third Floor 

Columbus, OH 43215 

614.387.9800 or 1.800.824.8263 

www.cco.state.oh.us 

RION T. MACCONNELL 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

LONDON CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION 

 Defendant 

Case No. 2008-10528 

Judge Clark B. Weaver Sr. 

JUDGMENT ENTRY

 This case was tried to the court on the issue of liability. The court has 

considered the evidence and, for the reasons set forth in the decision filed concurrently 

herewith, judgment is rendered in favor of plaintiff. The case will be set for trial on the 

issue of damages. 

 _____________________________________ 

 CLARK B. WEAVER SR. 
 Judge 

cc: 

 

Jennifer A. Adair 

Assistant Attorney General 

150 East Gay Street, 18th Floor 

Columbus, Ohio 43215-3130 

Richard F. Swope 

6480 East Main Street, Suite 102 

Reynoldsburg, Ohio 43068 

RCV/cmd

Filed March 17, 2011 

To S.C. reporter April 12, 2011