Court Opinion

ID: 9399592
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-05 19:11:20.254978+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:37.133914
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Reigert v. State of Ohio Med. Bd., 2023-Ohio-1489.]

                                 IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO

    JOHN REIGERT                                         Case No. 2022-00750PQ

          Requester                                      Judge Lisa L. Sadler

          v.                                             DECISION AND ENTRY

    STATE OF OHIO MEDICAL BOARD

          Respondent

          {¶1} Requester John Reigert, a self-represented litigant, and Respondent State
Medical Board of Ohio separately object to a Special Master’s Report and
Recommendation in this public-records case.                     The Court overrules Requester’s
objections, overrules Respondent’s objections, and adopts the Special Master’s Report
and Recommendation for reasons that follow.
     I.        Background
          {¶2} On October 25, 2022, Requester filed a public-records complaint against
Respondent.1 On January 10, 2023, with leave of court, Requester filed an Amended
Complaint against Respondent, stating:
                 Specifically, the original complaint, filed due to the extraordinary
          delay of the State Medical Board of Ohio to respond to public records
          request, is now moot as they have answered requests on 11/7/22 after
          requestors original Complaint was filed on 10/25/22. However, subsequent
          and ongoing responses for records were grossly contrary to the
          transparency mandate of the Ohio Public Records Act and the SMBO [State

1        In the Complaint, Requester asserted: “For over 45 days the State of Ohio Medical Board has
intentionally and illegally withheld or ‘slow walked’ complainant’s Public Records request * * * related to
their case CO2020-8005 within a reasonable time in clear violation of the Ohio Public Records Request
Policy IV(A)(2)(3) Applicable Time Frame * * *.”
Case No. 2022-00750PQ                                -2-                            DECISION & ENTRY

        Medical Board of Ohio] Policy on Public Records Requests and made an
        Amended Complaint necessary.
        {¶3} The matter was referred for mediation, but mediation failed to successfully
resolve all disputed issues between the parties. Respondent filed a Combined Response
to Complaint and Motion To Dismiss in which Respondent asked for denial “and/or”
dismissal of Requester’s Amended Complaint pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6) and (C), R.C.
149.43, and 2743.75. A Special Master, who had been appointed in the cause, held a
conference with the parties and issued an order that established filing deadlines and that
required certain records to be filed under seal for in camera review.
        {¶4} On     March      23,   2023,     the    Special    Master      issued     a   Report     and
Recommendation (R&R). The Special Master has identified five requests by Requester
and recommends an award of partial relief. The Special Master recommends that
         Respondent be ordered to produce to Requester the records copied at pp. 6-38
         of “Respondent’s Submissions for In Camera Review,” filed March 16, 2023, that
         Requester recover his filing fees and other costs of this case, but that he be
         denied the other relief sought in his amended complaint.
         The Motion for In Camera Review be denied.
(R&R, 11.)
        {¶5} On March 28, 2023, Requester filed written objections to the Special Master’s
Report and Recommendation. Requester’s objections are accompanied by a certification
attesting that the objections were served on Respondent’s counsel by “regular mail.”2 On
April 3, 2023, without leave of court, Requester filed a document labeled “Requestor
Amendment/Addendum to his Initial Objections to the Special Master Report and
Recommendation.” Respondent has filed a written response in opposition to Requester’s

2       R.C. 2743.75(F)(2) requires an objecting party to “send[] a copy [of the objections] to the other
party by certified mail, return receipt requested.” Requester failed to comply with R.C. 2743.75(F)(2)
because, according to Requester’s certification, Requester sent a copy of his objections to Respondent’s
counsel by “regular mail.” The Court recognizes that Requester is a self-represented litigant but, even so,
Requester still is required to follow procedural law and court rules. State ex rel. Neil v. French, 153 Ohio
St.3d 271, 2018-Ohio-2692, 104 N.E.3d 764, ¶ 10.
Case No. 2022-00750PQ                              -3-                            DECISION & ENTRY

objections, as amended, with a certification attesting that a copy of its response was
served on Requester by certified mail.3
          {¶6} On April 6, 2023, Respondent filed written objections to the Special Master’s
Report and Recommendation, accompanied by a certification that a copy of the objections
was served on Requester by certified mail. On April 11, 2023, Requester filed a response
in opposition to Respondent’s objections, which is accompanied by a certification
attesting that Requester served a copy of the response on Respondent’s counsel by
“regular mail.”4
    II.      Law and Analysis
          {¶7} The General Assembly has created an alternative means to resolve public-
records disputes through the enactment of R.C. 2743.75. Welsh-Huggins v. Jefferson
Cty. Prosecutor’s Office, 163 Ohio St.3d 337, 2020-Ohio-5371, 170 N.E.3d 768, ¶ 11.
See R.C. 2743.75(A). Under Ohio law, a requester “must establish entitlement to relief
in an action filed in the Court of Claims under R.C. 2743.75 by clear and
convincing evidence.” Viola v. Cuyahoga Cty. Prosecutor’s Office, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga
No. 110315, 2021-Ohio-4210, ¶ 16, citing Hurt v. Liberty Twp., 2017-Ohio-7820, 97
N.E.3d 1153, ¶ 27-30 (5th Dist.). See Welsh-Huggins v. Jefferson Cty. Prosecutor’s
Office, 163 Ohio St.3d 337, 2020-Ohio-5371, 170 N.E.3d 768, ¶ 32. It is a requester’s
burden to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the requested records exist and
are public records maintained by a respondent. See State ex rel. Cordell v. Paden, 156
Ohio St.3d 394, 2019-Ohio-1216, 128 N.E.3d 179, ¶ 8.
          {¶8} A public-records custodian has the burden to establish the applicability of an
exception to disclosure of a public record. State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Jones-

3        Since Respondent has responded to Requester’s objections, as amended, Respondent does not
appear to have been prejudiced by Requester’s failure to seek leave before filing the statutorily
unauthorized “Amendment/Addendum.” See Black’s Law Dictionary 1428 (11th Ed. 2019) (defining
“prejudice” as “[d]amage or detriment to one’s legal rights or claims”). Absent any apparent prejudice to
Respondent, the Court will consider Requester’s objections, as amended, and Respondent’s response to
Requester’s objections, as amended.

4        R.C. 2743.75(F)(2) requires a response to another party’s objection to be sent by certified mail,
return receipt requested. See R.C. 2743.75(F)(2). Requester has failed to comply with R.C. 2743.75(F)(2)
because Requester sent his response to Respondent’s counsel by “regular mail.”
Case No. 2022-00750PQ                           -4-                          DECISION & ENTRY

Kelley, 118 Ohio St.3d 81, 2008-Ohio-1770, 886 N.E.2d 206, paragraph two of the
syllabus. In Jones-Kelley, the Ohio Supreme Court held:
              Exceptions to disclosure under the Public Records Act, R.C. 149.43,
       are strictly construed against the public-records custodian, and the
       custodian has the burden to establish the applicability of an exception. A
       custodian does not meet this burden if it has not proven that the requested
       records      fall   squarely   within   the    exception.   (State ex rel.    Carr v.
       Akron, 112 Ohio St.3d 351, 2006 Ohio 6714, 859 N.E.2d 948, P 30,
       followed.)
Kelley at paragraph two of the syllabus.
       B. Requester’s objections are not persuasive.
       {¶9} Under R.C. 2743.75(F)(2) any objection to a report and recommendation
“shall be specific and state with particularity all grounds for the objection.” Requester
asserts in his objections: “The Special Masters denial in Claim 1 fails when Requestor
cannot find any reference in the Respondent’s public records denial, quoted earlier by the
Special Master, to any improper request for ‘information’ instead of a ‘record’.” Requester
further asserts: “In the case of Claim 1, the plain language of the request itself may not
be perfect but a request for the ‘name of the investigator’, his ‘years of experience’, his
‘qualifications’ and his ‘prior employment’, can only be interpreted, by any reasonable
person, as a request for an SMBO employee’s personnel record.”                      Requester also
contends that that the Special Master “did not ‘liberally’ construe that Requester’s request
language in Claim 1 that occurred due to the fact that the Requester is a pro se, first time
requester who, despite not knowing the complex laws that regulate public records
requests.”
       {¶10} With respect to Request 1 (i.e., Claim 1), Requester’s request for the “name
of the investigator,” his “years of experience,” his “qualifications” and his “prior
employment,” supports the Special Master’s conclusion that Request 1 seeks certain
information, rather than specific records. See, e.g., State ex rel. Lanham v. State Adult
Parole Auth., 80 Ohio St.3d 425, 427, 687 N.E.2d 283 (1997); State ex rel. Thomas v.
Ohio State Univ., 70 Ohio St. 3d 1438, 638 N.E.2d 1041 (1994), citing State ex rel. Fant
v. Tober, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga NO. 63737, 1993 Ohio App. LEXIS 2591, (Apr. 28, 1993).
Case No. 2022-00750PQ                         -5-                         DECISION & ENTRY

       {¶11} Here, Requester has a responsibility to identify with reasonable clarity the
public records at issue. See State ex rel. Morgan v. City of New Lexington, 112 Ohio
St.3d 33, 2006-Ohio-6365, 857 N.E.2d 1208, ¶ 29, quoting State ex rel. Fant v. Tober
(Apr. 28, 1993), Cuyahoga App. No. 63737, 1993 WL 173743, * 1, affirmed in State ex
rel. Fant v. Tober (1993), 68 Ohio St.3d 117, 623 N.E.2d 1202 (explaining that it “‘is the
responsibility of the person who wishes to inspect and/or copy records to identify with
reasonable clarity the records at issue’”). In Request 1 Requester identified information
that he sought with reasonable clarity, but he failed to identify with clarity the public
records that he sought.
       {¶12} Additionally, even though a court is required to liberally construe R.C. 149.43
in favor of broad access, this does not mean that a court must liberally construe facts in
a particular case in favor of a requester. See State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Hamilton
Cty., 75 Ohio St.3d 374, 376, 662 N.E.2d 334 (1996) (“R.C. 149.43 is construed liberally
in favor of broad access, and any doubt is resolved in favor of disclosure of public
records”). Kosky v. Am. Gen. Corp, 7th Dist. Belmont No. 03 BE 31, 2004-Ohio-1541,
¶ 20 (“[t]he fact that a court must liberally construe a statute in favor of a claimant does
not mean it must liberally construe the facts in a particular case in favor of the claimant”).
       {¶13} With respect to Request 2, as well as Requests 3 and 4, Requester
essentially contends that the Special Master erred when he relies on the plain language
of Respondent’s response stating that “there are no responsive public records” as
meaning that no records exist. It is Requester’s burden to prove, by clear and convincing
evidence, that the records that he requested exist and are public records maintained by
Respondent. See State ex rel. Cordell, supra, at ¶ 8; Welsh-Huggins, supra, at ¶ 32.
Upon independent review, the Court finds that Requester has not sustained his burden
by clear and convincing evidence. See Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469, 120 N.E.2d
118 (1954), paragraph three of the syllabus (holding that clear and convincing evidence
“is that measure or degree of proof which is more than a mere ‘preponderance of the
evidence,’ but not to the extent of such certainty as is required ‘beyond a reasonable
doubt’ in criminal cases, and which will produce in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief
or conviction as to the facts sought to be established”).
Case No. 2022-00750PQ                         -6-                        DECISION & ENTRY

       {¶14} Requester further contends that the Special Master erred in dismissing his
motion for in camera review.        The Court finds no error with the Special Master’s
recommendation to deny Requester’s motion for in camera review. As the Supreme
Court of Ohio has remarked, “In camera review is unnecessary when the basis of the
request for review is speculation, rather than sufficient, credible evidence.” State ex rel.
Ullmann v. Klein, 160 Ohio St.3d 457, 2020-Ohio-2974, 158 N.E.3d 580, ¶ 20.
       C. Respondent’s objections are not persuasive.
       {¶15} Respondent urges that the Special Master did not properly apply Ohio
Supreme Court case law interpreting Respondent’s confidentiality statute, and ignored
the confidential information that would be revealed if Respondent were required to
respond to Requester’s request. Respondent further urges that the Special Master
incorrectly stated that Respondent did not present any “extrinsic evidence” in support of
its position, as Respondent attached an affidavit of in-house counsel David Katko to
Respondent’s Motion To Dismiss of February 13, 2023. Respondent maintains that the
identities of uncharged physicians are confidential pursuant to R.C. 4731.22(F)(5) and
that investigative techniques and actions are protected under the confidential law
enforcement investigatory records (CLEIRs) exception.5 Respondent asks this Court to
modify the Special Master’s conclusions and rule in favor of Respondent in all respects.
       {¶16} Respondent’s claims of error fail to persuade the Court for several reasons.
       {¶17} First, despite the Special Master’s statement that Respondent’s submission
for in camera review was not supplemented with “extrinsic evidence,” see R&R at 7, a
plain reading of the Report and Recommendation shows that the Special Master did
review the affidavit of David Katko, which was attached to Respondent’s Motion To
Dismiss of February 13, 2023. See R&R, at 5 (“The Board initially asserted that no
responsive records existed when it first responded to this request.            It ratified that
assertion in an affidavit submitted in its response Mr. Reigert’s complaint. MTD, p.
16, ¶12, p. 38”). Moreover, with the records that Respondent submitted under seal,
there is another affidavit of David Katko (Katko Affidavit, dated March 14, 2023), which
the Court has considered in ruling on Respondent’s objections. The Court finds no

5      Confidential law enforcement investigatory records (CLEIRs) are not public records. R.C.
149.43(A)(1)(h).
Case No. 2022-00750PQ                       -7-                        DECISION & ENTRY

prejudicial error resulting from the Special Master’s statement that the records filed under
seal were not supplemented with “extrinsic evidence.”
       {¶18} Second, R.C. 4731.22 concerns disciplinary actions by Respondent.
Pursuant to R.C. 4731.22(F)(5), a “report required to be submitted to the board under
[R.C. Chapter 4731], a complaint, or information received by the board pursuant to an
investigation or pursuant to an inspection under [R.C. 4731.054(E)] is confidential and not
subject to discovery in any civil action.” Based on the Court’s independent review, the
Court finds that the Special Master correctly noted that the records recommended for
disclosure “are personnel records unrelated to any investigation, so they do not contain
information received by pursuant to an investigation. They do not contain patient records
or provide any information about patients, complainants, physicians under investigation,
witnesses, or any other persons whose confidentiality right is implicated by an
investigation. They are outside the scope of R.C. 4731.22(F)(5).” (R&R, 7.)
       {¶19} Third, Respondent’s contention that, in the context of Requester’s request,
producing responsive records would reveal confidential information is not sufficiently
supported. In Mr. David Katko’s affidavit that accompanies the records filed under seal,
Katko avers:

               In response to Mr. Reigert’s Complaint number 3, which asked The
       Board to “Provide all records that identify all employees of SMBO that
       contributed to the Standards Review of case 2020-8005 and the medical
       qualifications of each[,]” attached are the personnel records responsive to
       this Complaint, marked as Exhibits 14-21.

(Emphasis added.) (Katko Affidavit, dated March 14, 2023, at paragraph 6.). Through
Katko’s Affidavit of March 14, 2023, the Board thus tacitly admits that, with respect to
Requester’s Request 3, responsive records, i.e., personnel records, do indeed exist.
Such a tacit admission contradicts Respondent’s response to Requester’s Request 3
in which Respondent stated, “There are no responsive public records.” (R&R, at 6;
Katko Affidavit, dated February 13, 2023, paragraph 12.)
       {¶20} Respondent nonetheless urges: “Although personnel records standing
alone are not inherently confidential, in the context of Mr. Requester’s request,
Case No. 2022-00750PQ                         -8-                        DECISION & ENTRY

producing responsive records would reveal confidential information.” (Emphasis sic.)
(Objections at 6.) Respondent contends that producing records in response to
Requesters’ request would reveal the identity of an uncharged physician, as well as
investigative techniques and actions that Respondent may have taken in an
investigation in violation of R.C. 4731.22(F)(5) and the CLEIRs exception.
       {¶21} Based on the Court’s independent review of the records provided under seal
to Request 3, the personnel records submitted for in camera review do not reveal the
identity of an uncharged physician or investigative techniques and actions. Under R.C.
149.43(A)(2), a confidential law enforcement investigatory record
       means any record that pertains to a law enforcement matter of a criminal,
       quasi-criminal, civil, or administrative nature, but only to the extent that the
       release of the record would create a high probability of disclosure of any of
       the following:
              (a) The identity of a suspect who has not been charged with the
       offense to which the record pertains, or of an information source or witness
       to whom confidentiality has been reasonably promised;
              (b) Information provided by an information source or witness to
       whom confidentiality has been reasonably promised, which information
       would reasonably tend to disclose the source’s or witness’s identity;
              (c) Specific confidential investigatory techniques or procedures or
       specific investigatory work product;
              (d) Information that would endanger the life or physical safety of law
       enforcement personnel, a crime victim, a witness, or a confidential
       information source.
R.C. 149.43(A)(2). In State ex rel. Rocker v. Guernsey Cty. Sheriff’s Office, 126 Ohio
St.3d 224, 2010-Ohio-3288, 932 N.E.2d 327, the Supreme Court of Ohio explained that
the CLEIRs exception “applies only to those portions of records that, if released, would
create a high probability of disclosure of the suspect’s identity. We have held that records
are exempt under the uncharged-suspect exception when ‘the protected identities of
uncharged suspects are inextricably intertwined with the investigatory records.’” State
Case No. 2022-00750PQ                         -9-                        DECISION & ENTRY

ex rel. Rocker at ¶ 11, quoting State ex rel. Master v. Cleveland, 76 Ohio St.3d 340, 342,
667 N.E.2d 974 (1996).
      {¶22} Application of the CLEIRs exception to some records in an investigative file
fails to automatically create a blanket exemption covering all records in an investigative
file. See Rocker at ¶ 14. Recently, the Ohio Supreme Court explained that
      under [its] precedent, it is not enough to say that a record is probably within
      a statutorily prescribed exemption: the public office or records custodian
      must      show   “that    the     requested record    falls squarely within   the
      exemption.” State        ex     rel.   Cincinnati    Enquirer v.    Jones-Kelly,
      118 Ohio St.3d 81, 2008-Ohio-1770, 888 N.E.2d 206, at paragraph two of
      the syllabus. And we must “construe R.C. 149.43 liberally in favor of broad
      access and resolve any doubt in favor of disclosure.” State ex rel. Cincinnati
      Enquirer v. Ohio Dept. of Pub. Safety, 148 Ohio St.3d 433, 2016-Ohio-
      7987, 71 N.E.3d 258, at ¶ 28.
(Emphasis sic.) Welsh-Huggins, at ¶ 63.
      {¶23} Applying Rocker and Welsh-Huggins, and upon independent review, the
Court cannot conclude that Respondent has shown that the records that the Special
Master has recommended for disclosure squarely fall within the CLEIRs exception
because the release of the recommended records would create a high probability of
disclosure of (a) “[t]he identity of a suspect who has not been charged with the offense to
which the record pertains, or of an information source or witness to whom confidentiality
has been reasonably promised; (b) [i]nformation provided by an information source or
witness to whom confidentiality has been reasonably promised, which information would
reasonably tend to disclose the source’s or witness’s identity; (c) [s]pecific confidential
investigatory techniques or procedures or specific investigatory work product; [or]
(d) [i]nformation that would endanger the life or physical safety of law enforcement
personnel, a crime victim, a witness, or a confidential information source.”              R.C.
149.43(A)(2).
      {¶24} Respondent acknowledges in its objections that, in Narciso v. Powell Police
Dept., Ct. of Cl. No. 2018-01195PQ, 2018-Ohio-4590, ¶ 30, adopted by Ct. of Cl. No.
2018-01195PQ, 2018-Ohio-5017, this Court rejected a similar argument advanced by
Case No. 2022-00750PQ                              -10-                            DECISION & ENTRY

Respondent in this case concerning the application of the CLEIRs exception.
Respondent states, “For purposes of possible appeal, the Board respectfully submits that
this portion of Narciso was wrongly decided.” (Objections, 9.)                     To the extent that
Respondent invites the Court to revisit Narciso, the Court declines Respondent’s
invitation as Narciso is factually distinguishable and Narciso is not the sole basis for the
Court’s ruling on Respondent’s objections.
           {¶25} In sum, having concluded that the parties’ objections are unpersuasive, the
Court finds that the Special Master’s Report and Recommendation should be adopted
and that Respondent has denied Requester access to public records in violation of R.C.
149.43(B). Consequently, Requester is entitled to relief under R.C. 2743.75(F)(3).
    III.      Conclusion
           {¶26} The Court overrules both parties’ objections, adopts the Special Master’s
Report and Recommendation, and denies Requester’s Motion For In Camera Review for
reasons set forth above. Respondent is ORDERED to produce to Requester the records
copied at pp. 6-38 of “Respondent’s Submissions for In Camera Review,” filed on March
16, 2023.6
           {¶27} Accordingly, Requester is entitled to recover from Respondent the amount
of the filing fee of twenty-five dollars and any other costs associated with the action that
are incurred by the Requester, excepting attorney fees. Court costs are assessed against
Respondent. The Clerk shall serve upon all parties notice of this judgment and its date
of entry upon the journal.

                                                  LISA L. SADLER

6        The Special Master states in footnote 1 of the Report and Recommendation, “All references to
specific pages of matters filed in this case are to pages of the PDF copies posted on the Court’s docket,
rather than to any internal pagination of the filings.” (R&R, 1.) Pages 6-38 of the PDF thus begins with
“Exhibit 14” (page 6 of the PDF) and continues through “Exhibit 21” (page 38 of the PDF).
Case No. 2022-00750PQ          -11-    DECISION & ENTRY

                               Judge

Filed April 19, 2023
Sent to S.C. Reporter 5/4/23