[Cite as White v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. , 2020-Ohio-2842.]

QUAN JALIL WHITE

Plaintiff

v.

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION

Defendan t Case No. 2019-01013AD
Deputy Clerk Daniel R. Borchert

MEMORANDUM DECISION

FINDINGS OF FACT {¶1} Quan Jalil White (“plaintiff”), an inmate, filed a complaint ag ainst defendant, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (“O DRC”). Plaintiff related on July 1, 2019, he was placed in segregation while housed at d efendant’s Warren Correctional Institution (“WCI”). Plaintiff alleges that he in formed the guard transferring him that he needed an ADA compliant cell, but the guard did not place him in an ADA compliant cell. Plaintiff states that as a result of this plac ement he fell in his cell while attempting to use the toilet and suffered from a concussion. P laintiff also alleges
another violation of the ADA from an incident that occurred on July 4, 2019, when he claims he was denied access to an ADA compliant shower. Plaint iff seeks damages in the amount of $10,000.00 for his concussion, emotional distress , continuing head and neck pain, and sleep issues. Plai ntiff was not required to sub mit the $25.00 filing fee. {¶2} Defendant submitted an Investigation Report denying liability i n this matter. Defendant confirms that plaintiff was placed in restri ctive housing on July 1, 2019. Defendant states that plaintiff was initially placed in a non-ADA compliant cell until other inmates were moved out of the ADA compliant cell an d the guard could confirm plaintiff’s qualificati ons for an ADA accommodation. D efendant avers that this is its normal procedure. The institution’s records confirm that p laintiff was moved to an ADA compliant segregation cell on the same day that he was move d into restrictiveCase No. 2019-01013AD -2- MEMORANDUM DECISION

housing. Defendant submitted plaintiff’s medical records stemm ing from this incident. These records show that plaintiff was taken to medical on July 1, 2019, at 12:43PM where a nurse examined him for signs of a possible fall and sym ptoms of a concussion. The nurse conducted a neurological exam and plaintiff responded normally. The nurse did not observe any signs that the plaintiff had fallen. Plain tiff rested in medical and was given water and ibuprofen. Plaintiff was instructed to return to medical if he vomited or if his symptoms worsened. Defendant’s medical records show tha t plaintiff returned to medical at 2:15PM on the same day because he vomited. At that time, the nurse examined him again and saw no changes from the previous examina tion. Plaintiff was prescribed Tylenol three times per day for three days. Defenda nt contends that plaintiff’s claim is not an ADA claim but rather a complaint ab out the conditions of plaintiff’s confinement and that this court does not have juris diction. To the extent plaintiff asserts a medical negligence claim, defendant denies liability. {¶3} Plaintiff submitted a response to defendant’s investigation rep ort. Plaintiff requested leave from the court to obtain video from the prison from July 1, 2019 and July 4, 2019. Plaintiff requested various medical records from the institution. Further, plaintiff states that he does not wish to bring a negligence cl aim against defendant. Plaintiff also cites a ODRC polic y about inappropriate supervis ion.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW {¶4} “To prove a violation of Title II of the ADA, a plaintiff must establish that: (1) he or she is a qualified individual with a disability; (2) the defendant is subject to the ADA; and (3) the plaintiff was denied the opportunity to partic ipate in or benefit from the defendant’s services, programs, or activities or was otherwise discriminated against by the defendant, by reason of the plaintiff’s disability.” Wolfe v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. &
Corr. , 10th Dist. No. 11AP-346, 2011-Ohio-6825, ¶ 16, citing Franks v. Ohio Dept. of
Rehab. & Corr. , 195 Ohio App. 3d 114, 2011-Ohio-2048, 958 N.E.2d 1253 (10th D ist.);
See also Pennsylvania Dept. of Corr. v. Yeskey , 524 U.S. 206, 209-10, 118 S. Ct. 1952,Case No. 2019-01013AD -3- MEMORANDUM DECISION

141 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1998) (Title II of the ADA applies to state prisons and prisoners, and prisons cannot use an inmate’s disability as a reason to bar th at inmate from participating in or receiving the benefits of recreation, medic al services, or education and vocational programs.). A defendant discriminates against a qualified individual with a disability if it denies him or her a reasonable accommodation

. Wolfe at ¶ 16. {¶5} The first requirement of the ADA is that plaintiff must be a qu alified individual with a disability. “Under the ADA, a ‘qualified ind ividual with a disability’ is ‘an individual with a disability who, with or without reasonable mo difications to rules, policies, or practices, the removal of architectural, communica tion, or transportation barriers, or the provision of auxiliary aids and services, meet s the essential eligibility requirements for the receipt of services or the participation i n programs or activities provided by a public entity.’ F urther, a ‘disability’ is ‘a ph ysical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities’ of the individual. ‘Major life activities include, caring for oneself, performing manual tasks , seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, lifting, bending, speaking, breath ing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating, and working.’” (Citati on omitted.) Franks at ¶ 19, quoting 42 U.S.C. 12131(2), 42 U.S.C. 12102(1)(A), 42 U.S .C. 12102(2)(A). {¶6} Further, “[s]everal factors should be considered in determining whether an impairment ‘substantially limits’ a major life activity: (1) th e nature and severity of the impairment, (2) the duration or expected duration of the impair ment, and (3) the permanent or long-term impact, or the expected permanent or lon g term impact of, or resulting from, the impairment.” Jurczak v. J & R Schugel Trucking Co. , 10th Dist. No. 03AP-451, 2003-Ohio-7039, ¶ 23. {¶7} Here, plaintiff did not provide any evidence that he is a quali fied individual with a disability. Plaintiff did not identify in his complaint or his response to defendant’s investigation report what disab ility he has or how that impacts his daily life and major life
activities.Case No. 2019-01013AD -4- MEMORANDUM DECISION

{¶8} The second requirement of the ADA is for plaintiff to present e vidence that he was denied the opportunity to participate in or benefit from a service, program, or activity or was otherwise discriminated against by defendant be cause of his disability. Plaintiff’s complaint was that he was not placed in an ADA segr egation cell and that he was not allowed to have an ADA shower; plaintiff has not identi fied a service, program, or activity that he was denied the opportunity to participate i n or benefi t from or provided evidence that he was otherwise discriminated against. {¶9} Plaintiff has not met the burden of proof to sustain his ADA cl aim. {¶10} In addition, prison regulations, including those contained in t he Ohio Administrative Code, “are primarily designed to guide correctio nal officials in prison administration rather than to confer rights on inmates.” State ex rel. Larkins v.
Wilkinson , 79 Ohio St.3d 477, 479, 1997-Ohio-139, 683 N.E.2d 1139, citin g Sandlin v.
Conner 515 U.S. 472, 481-482, 115 S. Ct. 2293, 132 L. Ed. 2d 418 (199 5). Additionally,
this court has held that “even if defendant had violated the Oh io Administrative Code, no
cause of action would exist in this court. A breach of interna l regulations in itself does not constitute negligence.” Williams v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. and Corr. , 67 Ohio Misc.2d 1, 3, 643 N.E.2d 1182 (10th Dist. 1993). Accordingly, to the e xtent that plaintiff alleges that ODRC somehow violated internal prison regulations and the Ohio Administrative Code, he fails to state a claim for relief. See Sharp v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. , Ct. of Cl. No. 2008- 02410-AD, 2008-Ohio-7064, ¶ 5. {¶11} The credibility of witnesses and the weight attributable to the ir testimony are primarily matters for the trier of fact. State v. DeHass , 10 Ohio St.2d 230, 227 N.E.2d 212 (1967), paragraph one of the syllabus. The court is free to believe or disbelieve, all or any part of each witness’s testimony. State v. Antill , 176 Ohio St. 61, 197 N.E.2d 548 (1964). The court finds plaintiff’s statement n ot particularly persuasive. {¶12} Pursuant to Rule 7(E) of the Local Rules of the Court of Claims

, “Discovery procedures shall not be initiated in administrative determinations without theCase No. 2019-01013AD -5- MEMORANDUM DECISION

permission of the clerk.” Upon review of plaintiff’s request f or discovery in his response to defendant’s investigation report, the court notes that plain tiff did not seek the permission of the clerk when filing his motion. And, in light of this decision, the court finds that discovery is not warranted in this case. Accordingl y, plaintiff’s motion shall be
DENIED. {¶13} Further, concerning plaintiff’s access to his medical records, “R.C. 5120.21(C)(2) places limitations on an inmate’s access to medic al records.” Nicely v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. , 10th Dist. No. 09AP-187, 2009-Ohio-4386, ¶ 8. “R.C. 5120.21(C)(2) states that the inmate’s medical records sh all be available for review on two conditions. One is that the inmate make a signed written request for the records, and the other is that his request be accompanied by a written request of an attorney or physician designated by the inmate.” Goings v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.

, 10th Dist. No. 90AP-1041, 1991 Ohio App. LEXIS 2527 (May 28, 19 91). There is no indication that plaintiff has made a written request for his me dical records accompanied by a written request of an attorney or physician. Therefore, p laintiff is not entitled to a copy of his medical records. {¶14} Therefore, judgment is rendered in favor of defendant.

QUAN JALIL WHITE

Plaintiff

v.

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION

Defendan t Case No. 2019-01013AD
Deputy Clerk Daniel R. Borchert

ENTRY OF ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATIONCase No. 2019-01013AD -6- MEMORANDUM DECISION

{¶15} Having considered all the evidence in the claim file, and for t he reasons set forth in the memorandum decision filed concurrently herewit h, judgment is rendered in favor of defendant. Court costs are assessed against plaint iff.

DANIEL R. BORCHERT Deput y Clerk

Filed 3/26/20 Sent to S.C. reporter 5/7/20