[Cite as Wallace v. Grafton Correctional Inst., 2011-Ohio-366.]

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

RONNIE LEE WALLACE 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

GRAFTON CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION 

 Defendant 

Case No. 2009-07024 

Judge Clark B. Weaver Sr. 

Magistrate Robert Van Schoyck 

MAGISTRATE DECISION

{¶ 1} Plaintiff brought this action for negligence, alleging that defendant failed to 

timely provide him prescribed dental treatment. 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, Grafton Correctional Institution (GCI), pursuant to R.C. 5120.16. Plaintiff 

testified that in July or August 2007, he received a dental examination from Dr. Smith 

who was then the director of defendant’s dental clinic. During that examination, Dr. 

Smith discovered cavities in five of plaintiff’s teeth. According to plaintiff, Dr. Smith told 

him that the cavities would be filled and that none of the teeth would require extraction. 

{¶ 3} Before plaintiff received any further treatment, Dr. Smith ceased working 

at GCI, and a number of other dentists practiced in the dental clinic throughout 2008 

and 2009. Plaintiff testified that each of these dentists examined him independently to 

determine a treatment plan, and that these dentists determined that one or more of his 

teeth should be extracted. Plaintiff stated that he disagreed with such diagnoses, and 
Case No. 2009-07024 - 2 - MAGISTRATE DECISION

believed that he should have been provided the treatment originally prescribed by Dr. 

Smith. 

{¶ 4} According to plaintiff, the first treatment that he received for any of the five 

teeth at issue occurred in December 2008, when he received fillings in two of the teeth. 

Plaintiff stated that he received fillings in two of the other teeth by October 2009, and 

that the remaining tooth was extracted in January 2010. According to plaintiff, the tooth 

that was extracted could have been “saved” if it had been filled earlier. 

{¶ 5} Inmates Charles Consolo and Martin Timperio testified that they have 

been in defendant’s custody for many years and that they experienced delays in their 

own dental treatment until personnel changes occurred in the dental clinic in early 2010. 

{¶ 6} Dr. Philip K. Meme testified that he has served as director of defendant’s 

dental clinic since May 2010, and that he is employed by Mid-America Health 

Corporation which contracts with defendant for the provision of inmate dental care. Dr. 

Meme stated that an inmate’s course of treatment is determined by the treating dentist, 

not by the inmate. Dr. Meme further stated that when the dentist determines that 

treatment is necessary, dental clinic staff schedule an appointment according to the 

dentist’s instructions. Dr. Meme stated that treatment is prioritized based upon its 

urgency, as determined by the dentist, and that all treatment is provided as soon as 

reasonably possible. 

{¶ 7} According to Dr. Meme, plaintiff’s dental records reflect that plaintiff was 

seen in the dental clinic regularly from 2007 to the present, and that the longest period 

of time during which he went without treatment was between March and August 2008. 

{¶ 8} Tara Cory, who is the lead dental assistant in the dental clinic and is 

employed by Mid-America Health Corporation, testified that she is responsible for 

scheduling inmates’ dental treatment. Cory stated that treatment is scheduled 

according to the treating dentist’s instructions, that treatment is prioritized based upon 
Case No. 2009-07024 - 3 - MAGISTRATE DECISION

its urgency, and that inmates are able to request appointments on their own by 

submitting a “health services request” form. 

{¶ 9} Cory testified that, according to plaintiff’s dental records, she or other staff 

in the dental clinic promptly scheduled plaintiff’s treatment as directed by his treating 

dentists. Cory further testified that plaintiff failed to appear for an appointment on March 

3, 2009, but that he appeared for a rescheduled appointment in July 2009. Cory stated 

that plaintiff did not agree with the course of treatment prescribed by some of the 

dentists who practiced in the clinic after Dr. Smith, and that she observed plaintiff argue 

with Dr. Luke about her treatment plan for him. 

{¶ 10} Michelle Viets, now a regional nurse administrator for the Department of 

Rehabilitation and Correction, was defendant’s health care administrator from 2004 to 

2008. Viets testified that an inmate’s course of dental treatment is determined by the 

treating dentist, and that such treatment is scheduled according to prioritized need, with 

inmates who are in pain receiving the highest priority. Viets stated that plaintiff’s dental 

records show that he was seen in the dental clinic routinely during the relevant time 

period, and that his appointments were scheduled according to dentists’ instructions. 

{¶ 11} Kimberly Hughes, the current health care administrator for defendant, 

testified that inmates’ dental treatment is scheduled according to dentists’ instructions. 

{¶ 12} In order for plaintiff to prevail upon his claim of negligence, he must prove 

by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant owed him a duty, that defendant’s 

acts or omissions resulted in a breach of that duty, and that the breach proximately 

caused his injuries. Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., Inc., 99 Ohio St.3d 79, 81, 2003-Ohio2573, citing Menifee v. Ohio Welding Products, Inc. (1984), 15 Ohio St.3d 75, 77. Ohio 

law imposes upon the state a duty of reasonable care and protection of its inmates. 

McCoy v. Engle (1987), 42 Ohio App.3d 204, 207-208. The state is not an insurer of 

inmates’ safety, however. Moore v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. (1993), 89 Ohio 

App.3d 107, 112. 
Case No. 2009-07024 - 4 - MAGISTRATE DECISION

{¶ 13} Based upon the totality of the evidence, the court finds that defendant 

timely scheduled plaintiff’s dental treatment based upon dentists’ instructions, and that 

plaintiff has thus failed to prove his claim of negligence with respect to the scheduling of 

such treatment. 

{¶ 14} Plaintiff’s assertion that one of his teeth was wrongly extracted when it 

could have been saved states a claim for dental malpractice. Such a claim requires 

expert testimony to establish: 1) the standard of care recognized by the dental 

community; 2) the failure of defendant to meet that standard; and 3) a direct causal 

connection between the alleged negligent act and the injury sustained. See Bruni v. 

Tatsumi (1976), 46 Ohio St.2d 127; Palmer v. Richland Correctional Inst., Franklin App. 

No. 04AP-540, 2004-Ohio-6717, ¶10. However, plaintiff did not introduce expert 

testimony. 

{¶ 15} Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that judgment be rendered 

in favor of defendant. 

A party may file written objections to the magistrate’s decision within 14 days of 

the filing of the decision, whether or not the court has adopted the decision during that 

14-day period as permitted by Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(e)(i). If any party timely files objections, 

any other party may also file objections not later than ten days after the first objections 

are filed. A party shall not assign as error on appeal the court’s adoption of any factual 

finding or legal conclusion, whether or not specifically designated as a finding of fact or 

conclusion of law under Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(ii), unless the party timely and specifically 

objects to that factual finding or legal conclusion within 14 days of the filing of the 

decision, as required by Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b).

 _____________________________________ 

 ROBERT C. VAN SCHOYCK 

 Magistrate 
Case No. 2009-07024 - 5 - MAGISTRATE DECISION

cc: 

 

Stephanie D. Pestello-Sharf 

Assistant Attorney General 

150 East Gay Street, 18th Floor 

Columbus, Ohio 43215-3130 

Ronnie Lee Wallace, #A140-221 

Grafton Correctional Institution 

2500 South Avon-Belden Road 

Grafton, Ohio 44044 

RCV/cmd

Filed January 5, 2011 

To S.C. reporter January 27, 2011