{"attribution":{"source":"legal.exploreworldai.com","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ohioctapp-115341-2026-04-23","cite_as":"NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ohioctapp-115341-2026-04-23)","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision","version":"legal-2026-11-03","fingerprint":"ewai:us:fae3c7","proof":"sha256:4dbb3d5e0f5eb2dc681abcd209c02acb2c31c01a062beedda12ff070ce41712d","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","publisher":"NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal","terms":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om"},"brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","item":{"schema_version":"1.0.0","id":"us:ohioctapp-115341-2026-04-23","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","brand":{"product":"NovaCopilot","platform":"ExploreWorldAI","infrastructure":"ExploreWorld Legal","infrastructure_url":"legal.exploreworldai.com","legal_entity":"Valkiv Ventures AB","permanent_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot","source":"Source: NovaCopilot","powered_by":"Powered by NovaCopilot","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor"},"sections":[{"title":"","paragraphs":["para_1"]},{"title":"COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"ANTHONY J. GINGO, JR., M.D., :","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Plaintiff-Appellee, :","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"No. 115341","paragraphs":["para_8"]},{"title":"JANE HANAK, :","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Defendant-Appellant. :","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: April 23, 2026","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Case No. CV-23-973797","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Appearances:","paragraphs":["para_17","para_18"]},{"title":"Vasvari | Zimmerman and Raymond V. Vasvari, Jr., for","paragraphs":["para_20"]},{"title":"MICHAEL JOHN RYAN, J.:","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Defendant-appellant Jane Hanak (“Hanak” or “Jane Hanak”) appeals","paragraphs":["para_23"]},{"title":"M.D. (“Dr. Gingo”). Hanak also appeals the trial court’s award of $145,000 in","paragraphs":["para_25","para_26","para_27"]},{"title":"Dr. Gingo is a board-certified obstetrician and gynecologist who","paragraphs":["para_29","para_30","para_31","para_32","para_33","para_34","para_35","para_36","para_37"]},{"title":"Sometime between June and August 2022, Hanak published a review","paragraphs":["para_39"]},{"title":"Gingo MD is a sexual predator. He is NOT a Pelvic Reconstruction","paragraphs":["para_41"]},{"title":"Lawyers hide this criminal/Felon. He has NO hospital privileges to","paragraphs":["para_43"]},{"title":"Urogynecologist are reconstruction specialist requiring a 3 year","paragraphs":["para_45"]},{"title":"1 While her appeal was pending before this court, Hanak, acting pro se, filed multiple","paragraphs":["para_47","para_48","para_49"]},{"title":"No. CV-22-963730, Hanak v. Gingo, et al., Cuyahoga C.P. No. CV-22-964069, and Hanak","paragraphs":["para_51","para_52","para_53","para_54","para_55","para_56","para_57","para_58","para_59","para_60","para_61"]},{"title":"Cleveland Clinic. Their doctors [sic] privileges are listed for every","paragraphs":["para_63","para_64","para_65"]},{"title":"SW has their own police department. City police refuse to take your","paragraphs":["para_67","para_68","para_69","para_70","para_71","para_72","para_73","para_74"]},{"title":"Dr. Gingo’s wife, Holly Gingo (“Holly”), saw the review on Yelp and","paragraphs":["para_76","para_77"]},{"title":"On January 13, 2023, Dr. Gingo filed suit against Hanak and her","paragraphs":["para_79"]},{"title":"2 Hanak included the Yelp review as an exhibit in her brief in opposition to","paragraphs":["para_81","para_82","para_83"]},{"title":"Hanak answered and filed numerous counterclaims, all of which the","paragraphs":["para_85","para_86","para_87"]},{"title":"Dr. Gingo moved for summary judgment, supported by an affidavit and","paragraphs":["para_89","para_90","para_91","para_92"]},{"title":"The trial court granted Dr. Gingo’s motion for summary judgment in","paragraphs":["para_94"]},{"title":"Dr. Gingo, and those statements were false. The court further found that Hanak’s","paragraphs":["para_96","para_97","para_98"]},{"title":"Gingo’s favor on the defamation per se claim and left the defamation by implication","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"3 Mark Hanak was a named defendant throughout this litigation; however, the trial","paragraphs":["para_101","para_102","para_103","para_104"]},{"title":"Hanak, who proceeded pro se until this point, obtained counsel, who","paragraphs":["para_106","para_107","para_108","para_109"]},{"title":"At the damages hearing, Dr. Gingo testified as to the harm caused by","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Hanak’s Yelp review. The trial court subsequently awarded the doctor $245,000 in","paragraphs":["para_112","para_113","para_114","para_115","para_116","para_117"]},{"title":"Hanak filed for leave to appeal to this court, which was granted. Hanak","paragraphs":["para_119"]},{"title":"I. The Trial Court erred to Mrs. Hanak’s prejudice when it granted","paragraphs":["para_121","para_122","para_123","para_124"]},{"title":"II. The Trial Court erred to Mrs. Hanak’s prejudice when it granted","paragraphs":["para_126","para_127","para_128","para_129"]},{"title":"Gingo was actually damaged by the allegedly defamatory assertions in","paragraphs":["para_131"]},{"title":"III. The Trial Court erred to Mrs. Hanak’s prejudice when it granted","paragraphs":["para_133","para_134","para_135"]},{"title":"IV. The Trial Court erred to Mrs. Hanak’s prejudice when it granted","paragraphs":["para_137","para_138"]},{"title":"Yelp Review, even if published by Mrs. Hanak, relate to matters of","paragraphs":["para_140"]},{"title":"V. The Trial Court erred to Mrs. Hanak’s prejudice when it quashed the","paragraphs":["para_142","para_143","para_144","para_145","para_146"]},{"title":"VI. The Trial Court’s excessive damages award against Mrs. Hanak","paragraphs":["para_148"]},{"title":"VII. The Trial Court erred to Mrs. Hanak’s prejudice when it declared","paragraphs":["para_150"]},{"title":"VIII. The Trial Court erred to Mrs. Hanak’s prejudice when it","paragraphs":["para_152","para_153","para_154"]},{"title":"Summary Judgment","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Hanak’s first through fourth and eighth assignments of error","paragraphs":["para_157","para_158"]},{"title":"In the first assignment of error, Hanak argues that the trial court","paragraphs":["para_160","para_161","para_162","para_163","para_164","para_165"]},{"title":"An appellate court reviews the grant or denial of summary judgment","paragraphs":["para_167","para_168","para_169","para_170"]},{"title":"Summary judgment is appropriate if (1) no genuine issue of any","paragraphs":["para_172","para_173","para_174","para_175","para_176","para_177"]},{"title":"The moving party has the initial responsibility of informing the trial","paragraphs":["para_179","para_180","para_181"]},{"title":"(1996). “To accomplish this, the movant must be able to point to the evidentiary","paragraphs":["para_183","para_184","para_185","para_186","para_187","para_188"]},{"title":"If the moving party fails to meet this burden, then summary judgment","paragraphs":["para_190","para_191","para_192","para_193"]},{"title":"Defamation Per Se","paragraphs":["para_195","para_196","para_197"]},{"title":"Med. Ctr., 2002-Ohio-6803, ¶ 15 (8th Dist.). To establish a claim for defamation, a","paragraphs":["para_199","para_200","para_201","para_202","para_203","para_204"]},{"title":"Defamation per se occurs when the defamation is manifested by the","paragraphs":["para_206"]},{"title":"2021-Ohio-1198, ¶ 29 (8th Dist.). A statement is defamatory per se where it supports","paragraphs":["para_208","para_209","para_210"]},{"title":"Kanjuka at ¶ 16. Where the statement constitutes defamation per se, damages and","paragraphs":["para_212"]},{"title":"In his motion for summary judgment Dr. Gingo claimed that Hanak’s","paragraphs":["para_214"]},{"title":"For the reasons set forth below and based on our de novo review, the","paragraphs":["para_216","para_217","para_218","para_219","para_220"]},{"title":"5 The expression of an opinion is generally immune from liability under the Ohio","paragraphs":["para_222"]},{"title":"Ohio-3484 (10th Dist.). Although Hanak stated in her brief in opposition to Dr. Gingo’s","paragraphs":["para_224","para_225"]},{"title":"4. Dr. Gingo does not have hospital privileges to perform cosmetic or","paragraphs":["para_227","para_228","para_229","para_230"]},{"title":"8. Dr. Gingo altered Hanak’s body to suit his perverted sexual taste and","paragraphs":["para_232"]},{"title":"9. Dr. Gingo concealed hate crimes, crimes against humanity, and","paragraphs":["para_234","para_235"]},{"title":"A plaintiff must prove falsity as an essential element of a defamation","paragraphs":["para_237","para_238"]},{"title":"App.3d 752, 755 (1st Dist. 1989). Therefore, “[i]n Ohio, truth is a complete defense","paragraphs":["para_240","para_241"]},{"title":"In support of his motion for summary judgment, Dr. Gingo averred","paragraphs":["para_243","para_244","para_245","para_246","para_247","para_248","para_249","para_250"]},{"title":"In response, Hanak argues that issues of material fact remain whether","paragraphs":["para_252","para_253","para_254","para_255","para_256","para_257","para_258","para_259","para_260","para_261","para_262"]},{"title":"Hanak’s list of exhibits include numerous printouts purportedly","paragraphs":["para_264","para_265","para_266","para_267","para_268","para_269"]},{"title":"None of the exhibits, except perhaps for Exhibit 1B, are the type of","paragraphs":["para_271","para_272"]},{"title":"Hanak’s statements that Dr. Gingo, an OB/GYN, committed rape and","paragraphs":["para_274","para_275","para_276","para_277","para_278","para_279","para_280","para_281","para_282"]},{"title":"Hanak also cannot show that her statements were privileged as","paragraphs":["para_284"]},{"title":"If a claimant establishes a prima facie case of defamation, a defendant","paragraphs":["para_286"]},{"title":"Elevator Co. v. Columbus/Cent. Ohio Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council, 73 Ohio St.3d","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"1, 7 (1995), citing Hahn v. Kotten, 43 Ohio St.2d 237 (1975). Hanak argues that her","paragraphs":["para_289","para_290","para_291"]},{"title":"The essential elements of a communication protected by qualified","paragraphs":["para_293","para_294","para_295","para_296","para_297"]},{"title":"Hanak has failed to demonstrate that any of the above circumstances","paragraphs":["para_299","para_300","para_301","para_302","para_303","para_304"]},{"title":"Finally, Hanak contends that the trial court erroneously considered","paragraphs":["para_306","para_307","para_308","para_309"]},{"title":"The statements made by Hanak in her Yelp review would tend to","paragraphs":["para_311","para_312","para_313"]},{"title":"The first through fourth and eighth assignments of error are","paragraphs":["para_315"]},{"title":"Motion to Quash and Exclusion of Witness Testimony","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"In the fifth assignment of error, Hanak argues that the trial court","paragraphs":["para_318","para_319","para_320","para_321"]},{"title":"Hanak claims that Dr. Deucher’s testimony was necessary to show","paragraphs":["para_323"]},{"title":"Hanak. She claims that Fox’s testimony was relevant because Fox would have","paragraphs":["para_325","para_326","para_327"]},{"title":"Civ.R. 45(C)(4) provides:","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"On timely motion, the court from which the subpoena was issued shall","paragraphs":["para_330","para_331"]},{"title":"(a) Fails to allow reasonable time to comply;","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"(b) Requires disclosure of privileged or otherwise protected matter and","paragraphs":["para_334"]},{"title":"(c) Requires disclosure of a fact known or opinion held by an expert not","paragraphs":["para_336"]},{"title":"6 Dr. Deucher and Fox were two of the dozen nonparty witnesses Hanak","paragraphs":["para_338","para_339","para_340","para_341","para_342","para_343"]},{"title":"We review a trial court’s ruling to quash or enforce a subpoena for an","paragraphs":["para_345"]},{"title":"Evans v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2018-Ohio-1035 (10th Dist.). We also review","paragraphs":["para_347","para_348"]},{"title":"Newlin v. Downing, 43 Ohio St.3d 109 (1989) (appellate courts review the decision","paragraphs":["para_350","para_351","para_352","para_353"]},{"title":"In his motion to quash, Dr. Deucher argued that the notice he was","paragraphs":["para_355","para_356","para_357","para_358","para_359","para_360","para_361","para_362","para_363"]},{"title":"Hanak contends that she did not intend to have Fox testify as an","paragraphs":["para_365","para_366","para_367","para_368"]},{"title":"Dr. Deucher and Fox had no personal knowledge of Dr. Gingo’s","paragraphs":["para_370","para_371","para_372"]},{"title":"Damages Award","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"In the sixth assignment of error, Hanak argues that the trial court’s","paragraphs":["para_375"]},{"title":"As an initial matter, we note that although Hanak stated that she was","paragraphs":["para_377","para_378","para_379"]},{"title":"Hanak concedes that she did not challenge the damages award with","paragraphs":["para_381","para_382","para_383","para_384","para_385","para_386"]},{"title":"According to Hanak, the award was excessive because Dr. Gingo","paragraphs":["para_388","para_389","para_390"]},{"title":"Ohio as a board-certified OB/GYN since 1992. According to Dr. Gingo, as a male","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"OB/GYN, he has had to develop relationships and trust with his patients: “An","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"OB/GYN is different. Again, it’s very personal. You grow up with a lot of these","paragraphs":["para_394","para_395"]},{"title":"Dr. Gingo testified that once he found out about the review, the","paragraphs":["para_397"]},{"title":"Dr. Gingo testified that after the review was published, his patient load dropped by","paragraphs":["para_399","para_400","para_401","para_402","para_403","para_404","para_405"]},{"title":"Additionally, because of the protections afforded by HIPAA, Dr. Gingo was","paragraphs":["para_407"]},{"title":"Dr. Gingo testified that he was pressured to step down from his position as chairman","paragraphs":["para_409","para_410","para_411"]},{"title":"Holly Gingo, Dr. Gingo’s spouse, testified to the impact that the","paragraphs":["para_413","para_414","para_415"]},{"title":"68 patients per week. She further testified that her husband used to practice","paragraphs":["para_417","para_418"]},{"title":"The evidence presented at the damages hearing supported the trial","paragraphs":["para_420","para_421","para_422","para_423","para_424","para_425","para_426","para_427","para_428"]},{"title":"Vexatious Litigator","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"In the seventh assignment of error, Hanak challenges her designation","paragraphs":["para_431"]},{"title":"In its order granting summary judgment, the trial court found that","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Hanak was a vexatious litigator pursuant to R.C. 2323.52. A vexatious litigator “is a","paragraphs":["para_434","para_435"]},{"title":"R.C. 2323.52(B) provides a party can be declared a vexatious litigator","paragraphs":["para_437","para_438","para_439","para_440","para_441","para_442"]},{"title":"1. Instituting legal proceedings in the court of claims or in a court of","paragraphs":["para_444"]},{"title":"2. Continuing any legal proceedings that the vexatious litigator had","paragraphs":["para_446","para_447"]},{"title":"3. Making any application, other than an application for leave to","paragraphs":["para_449","para_450","para_451","para_452","para_453","para_454","para_455","para_456","para_457","para_458","para_459"]},{"title":"It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said court to carry this judgment","paragraphs":["para_461"]},{"title":"A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule","paragraphs":["para_463","para_464"]},{"title":"MICHAEL JOHN RYAN, JUDGE","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"EMANUELLA D. GROVES, P.J., and","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"TIMOTHY W. CLARY, J., CONCUR","paragraphs":[]}],"paragraphs":[{"text":"[Cite as Gringo v. Hanak, 2026-Ohio-1452.]","paragraph_id":"para_1"},{"text":"COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO","paragraph_id":"para_2"},{"text":"EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT","paragraph_id":"para_3"},{"text":"COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA","paragraph_id":"para_4"},{"text":"ANTHONY J. GINGO, JR., M.D., :","paragraph_id":"para_5"},{"text":"Plaintiff-Appellee, :","paragraph_id":"para_6"},{"text":"No. 115341","paragraph_id":"para_7"},{"text":"v. :","paragraph_id":"para_8"},{"text":"JANE HANAK, :","paragraph_id":"para_9"},{"text":"Defendant-Appellant. :","paragraph_id":"para_10"},{"text":"JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION","paragraph_id":"para_11"},{"text":"JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED","paragraph_id":"para_12"},{"text":"RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: April 23, 2026","paragraph_id":"para_13"},{"text":"Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas","paragraph_id":"para_14"},{"text":"Case No. CV-23-973797","paragraph_id":"para_15"},{"text":"Appearances:","paragraph_id":"para_16"},{"text":"Reminger Co. L.P.A., Brianna M. Prislipsky, and Brian D.","paragraph_id":"para_17"},{"text":"Sullivan, for appellee.","paragraph_id":"para_18"},{"text":"Vasvari | Zimmerman and Raymond V. Vasvari, Jr., for","paragraph_id":"para_19"},{"text":"appellant.","paragraph_id":"para_20"},{"text":"MICHAEL JOHN RYAN, J.:","paragraph_id":"para_21"},{"text":"Defendant-appellant Jane Hanak (“Hanak” or “Jane Hanak”) appeals","paragraph_id":"para_22"},{"text":"the trial court’s decision granting summary judgment in favor of Anthony Gingo, Jr.,","paragraph_id":"para_23"},{"text":"M.D. (“Dr. Gingo”). Hanak also appeals the trial court’s award of $145,000 in","paragraph_id":"para_24"},{"text":"compensatory damages and $100,000 in punitive damages, as well as its finding","paragraph_id":"para_25"},{"text":"that she is a vexatious litigator. After a thorough review of the facts and the law, we","paragraph_id":"para_26"},{"text":"find no merit to the appeal and affirm.","paragraph_id":"para_27"},{"text":"Dr. Gingo is a board-certified obstetrician and gynecologist who","paragraph_id":"para_28"},{"text":"performed a surgical procedure on Hanak in April 2017. On September 5, 2019,","paragraph_id":"para_29"},{"text":"more than two years after that procedure was performed, Hanak initiated","paragraph_id":"para_30"},{"text":"proceedings against Gingo, alleging that he and Dr. Kimberly Kraus, a gynecologist","paragraph_id":"para_31"},{"text":"who performed a subsequent procedure, rendered negligent medical care and","paragraph_id":"para_32"},{"text":"treatment. See Hanak v. Kraus, Cuyahoga C.P. No. CV-19-921015. The complaint","paragraph_id":"para_33"},{"text":"was voluntarily dismissed on January 24, 2020. On January 26, 2021, Hanak refiled","paragraph_id":"para_34"},{"text":"the complaint. See Hanak v. Kraus, Cuyahoga C.P. No. CV-21-943309. Dr. Gingo","paragraph_id":"para_35"},{"text":"filed a motion to dismiss, which the trial court granted. Hanak appealed. This court","paragraph_id":"para_36"},{"text":"affirmed the trial court’s decision. See Hanak v. Kraus, 2022-Ohio-1941 (8th Dist.).1","paragraph_id":"para_37"},{"text":"Sometime between June and August 2022, Hanak published a review","paragraph_id":"para_38"},{"text":"of Dr. Gingo on the online platform Yelp. The review stated the following:","paragraph_id":"para_39"},{"text":"Gingo MD is a sexual predator. He is NOT a Pelvic Reconstruction","paragraph_id":"para_40"},{"text":"specialist. He is a Rapist. Commits Insurance Fraud. The Hospital","paragraph_id":"para_41"},{"text":"Lawyers hide this criminal/Felon. He has NO hospital privileges to","paragraph_id":"para_42"},{"text":"perform any cosmetic or reconstruction pelvic surgeries.","paragraph_id":"para_43"},{"text":"Urogynecologist are reconstruction specialist requiring a 3 year","paragraph_id":"para_44"},{"text":"fellowship in addition to being a board certified gynecologist which are","paragraph_id":"para_45"},{"text":"1 While her appeal was pending before this court, Hanak, acting pro se, filed multiple","paragraph_id":"para_46"},{"text":"lawsuits in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas that related to her surgery.","paragraph_id":"para_47"},{"text":"Dr. Gingo was a named defendant in some of the suits. See Hanak v. Univ. Hosp., et al.,","paragraph_id":"para_48"},{"text":"Cuyahoga C.P. No. CV-22-963270, Hanak v. Southwest Gen. Hosp., et al., Cuyahoga C.P.","paragraph_id":"para_49"},{"text":"No. CV-22-963730, Hanak v. Gingo, et al., Cuyahoga C.P. No. CV-22-964069, and Hanak","paragraph_id":"para_50"},{"text":"v. Kraus, et al., Cuyahoga C.P. No. CV-22-964286.","paragraph_id":"para_51"},{"text":"trained in reproductive organs. Dr. Gingo butchered me without my","paragraph_id":"para_52"},{"text":"consent or knowledge, practicing and experimenting on women for","paragraph_id":"para_53"},{"text":"over 5 years. He would not tell me what he had done. Major","paragraph_id":"para_54"},{"text":"gastrointestinal issues developed as well as sexual disfunction [sic]. He","paragraph_id":"para_55"},{"text":"did not have hospital privileges. He altered my consent, added internal","paragraph_id":"para_56"},{"text":"procedures, extending my anesthesia, exasperating my autoimmune","paragraph_id":"para_57"},{"text":"disease, altering my body to suit “His” perverted sexual tastes and","paragraph_id":"para_58"},{"text":"desires. Taking graphic nude photos in the surgical room, unconscious,","paragraph_id":"para_59"},{"text":"without my knowledge. SW General will hide the privilege lists of the","paragraph_id":"para_60"},{"text":"doctors who practice at this privately owned, by doctors, facility. Go to","paragraph_id":"para_61"},{"text":"Cleveland Clinic. Their doctors [sic] privileges are listed for every","paragraph_id":"para_62"},{"text":"doctor under Treatments and services. Why does SW General hide","paragraph_id":"para_63"},{"text":"their doctor’s [sic] lists? As long as they receive insurance payment,","paragraph_id":"para_64"},{"text":"they don’t care about patient safety, money is their God they ascribe to.","paragraph_id":"para_65"},{"text":"SW has their own police department. City police refuse to take your","paragraph_id":"para_66"},{"text":"report, internal investigations are illegal. The SW police do not even","paragraph_id":"para_67"},{"text":"have a detective. Maybe this is why Sexual assault and battery is not","paragraph_id":"para_68"},{"text":"reported, you simply are forced to “Cease and Desist.” Seriously, Run","paragraph_id":"para_69"},{"text":"for your life. Gingo and Kraus have many lawsuits. Sadly, a preganant","paragraph_id":"para_70"},{"text":"[sic] woman lost her life after a major stroke, damaged babies, nurses","paragraph_id":"para_71"},{"text":"suing him for his outrageous behavior. This doctor and Hospital","paragraph_id":"para_72"},{"text":"appear to hate women. They conceal Hate Crimes. Crimes against","paragraph_id":"para_73"},{"text":"humanity and civil rights.[2]","paragraph_id":"para_74"},{"text":"Dr. Gingo’s wife, Holly Gingo (“Holly”), saw the review on Yelp and","paragraph_id":"para_75"},{"text":"informed Dr. Gingo about it. She estimated she saw the review about two to three","paragraph_id":"para_76"},{"text":"months after Hanak posted it.","paragraph_id":"para_77"},{"text":"On January 13, 2023, Dr. Gingo filed suit against Hanak and her","paragraph_id":"para_78"},{"text":"husband, Mark Hanak, alleging defamation, defamation per se, and defamation by","paragraph_id":"para_79"},{"text":"2 Hanak included the Yelp review as an exhibit in her brief in opposition to","paragraph_id":"para_80"},{"text":"Dr. Gingo’s motion for summary judgment.","paragraph_id":"para_81"},{"text":"implication based on Hanak’s Yelp review.3 He also sought to have Hanak and her","paragraph_id":"para_82"},{"text":"husband declared vexatious litigators.","paragraph_id":"para_83"},{"text":"Hanak answered and filed numerous counterclaims, all of which the","paragraph_id":"para_84"},{"text":"trial court eventually dismissed. Hanak filed a “second answer,” various motions to","paragraph_id":"para_85"},{"text":"compel, and for sanctions against Dr. Gingo. The trial court denied the motions to","paragraph_id":"para_86"},{"text":"compel and for sanctions.","paragraph_id":"para_87"},{"text":"Dr. Gingo moved for summary judgment, supported by an affidavit and","paragraph_id":"para_88"},{"text":"portions of Hanak’s deposition. Hanak responded, arguing that there was no","paragraph_id":"para_89"},{"text":"evidence of damages, the statements made in her Yelp review were true, and there","paragraph_id":"para_90"},{"text":"was no evidence anyone actually saw the Yelp review before it was taken down.","paragraph_id":"para_91"},{"text":"Attached to Hanak’s opposition brief were numerous unauthenticated exhibits.","paragraph_id":"para_92"},{"text":"The trial court granted Dr. Gingo’s motion for summary judgment in","paragraph_id":"para_93"},{"text":"part. The court found that Hanak admitted to making multiple statements about","paragraph_id":"para_94"},{"text":"Dr. Gingo, and those statements were false. The court further found that Hanak’s","paragraph_id":"para_95"},{"text":"statements were defamation per se, because they were words that “import an","paragraph_id":"para_96"},{"text":"indictable criminal offense involving moral turpitude or infamous punishment and","paragraph_id":"para_97"},{"text":"tend to injure” Dr. Gingo’s profession. The trial court entered judgment in Dr.","paragraph_id":"para_98"},{"text":"Gingo’s favor on the defamation per se claim and left the defamation by implication","paragraph_id":"para_99"},{"text":"3 Mark Hanak was a named defendant throughout this litigation; however, the trial","paragraph_id":"para_100"},{"text":"court’s damages and attorney fees awards named only Jane Hanak. Mark Hanak is not a","paragraph_id":"para_101"},{"text":"party to this appeal; therefore, discussion will be limited to Jane Hanak.","paragraph_id":"para_102"},{"text":"claim pending.4 The court declared the Hanaks vexatious litigators pursuant to","paragraph_id":"para_103"},{"text":"R.C. 2323.52. The court set the matter for a damages hearing.","paragraph_id":"para_104"},{"text":"Hanak, who proceeded pro se until this point, obtained counsel, who","paragraph_id":"para_105"},{"text":"moved for reconsideration of the motion for summary judgment. In support of her","paragraph_id":"para_106"},{"text":"motion, Hanak attached an affidavit from Irene Fox (“Fox”), a friend and nurse who","paragraph_id":"para_107"},{"text":"was previously employed at the same hospital as Dr. Gingo. The trial court denied","paragraph_id":"para_108"},{"text":"the motion for reconsideration.","paragraph_id":"para_109"},{"text":"At the damages hearing, Dr. Gingo testified as to the harm caused by","paragraph_id":"para_110"},{"text":"Hanak’s Yelp review. The trial court subsequently awarded the doctor $245,000 in","paragraph_id":"para_111"},{"text":"damages, which included $50,000 for damage to reputation, $50,000 for mental","paragraph_id":"para_112"},{"text":"anguish, and $45,000 for loss of society. The award also included $100,000 in","paragraph_id":"para_113"},{"text":"punitive damages, based upon a finding that Hanak acted with hatred, ill will, or a","paragraph_id":"para_114"},{"text":"spirit of revenge, or with disregard to Dr. Gingo’s rights and safety. Later, the court","paragraph_id":"para_115"},{"text":"held a separate hearing on attorney fees and awarded $93,437.47 in attorney fees to","paragraph_id":"para_116"},{"text":"Dr. Gingo.","paragraph_id":"para_117"},{"text":"Hanak filed for leave to appeal to this court, which was granted. Hanak","paragraph_id":"para_118"},{"text":"raises eight assignments of error for our review:","paragraph_id":"para_119"},{"text":"I. The Trial Court erred to Mrs. Hanak’s prejudice when it granted","paragraph_id":"para_120"},{"text":"summary judgment in favor of Dr. Gingo in the liability phase of this","paragraph_id":"para_121"},{"text":"defamation action because a genuine issue of material fact exists as to","paragraph_id":"para_122"},{"text":"whether the alleged defamatory assertions in the Yelp Review of Dr.","paragraph_id":"para_123"},{"text":"Gingo were true or false.","paragraph_id":"para_124"},{"text":"II. The Trial Court erred to Mrs. Hanak’s prejudice when it granted","paragraph_id":"para_125"},{"text":"summary judgment in favor of Dr. Gingo in the liability phase of this","paragraph_id":"para_126"},{"text":"4 Dr. Gingo later dismissed his claim for defamation by implication.","paragraph_id":"para_127"},{"text":"defamation action because Dr. Gingo had the burden to prove actual","paragraph_id":"para_128"},{"text":"damages, and a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether Dr.","paragraph_id":"para_129"},{"text":"Gingo was actually damaged by the allegedly defamatory assertions in","paragraph_id":"para_130"},{"text":"the Yelp Review about him.","paragraph_id":"para_131"},{"text":"III. The Trial Court erred to Mrs. Hanak’s prejudice when it granted","paragraph_id":"para_132"},{"text":"summary judgment to Dr. Gingo in the liability phase of this","paragraph_id":"para_133"},{"text":"defamation action because a genuine issue of material fact exists as to","paragraph_id":"para_134"},{"text":"whether the Yelp Review was published with actual malice.","paragraph_id":"para_135"},{"text":"IV. The Trial Court erred to Mrs. Hanak’s prejudice when it granted","paragraph_id":"para_136"},{"text":"summary judgment in favor of Dr. Gingo in the liability phase of this","paragraph_id":"para_137"},{"text":"defamation action because the assertions in the allegedly defamatory","paragraph_id":"para_138"},{"text":"Yelp Review, even if published by Mrs. Hanak, relate to matters of","paragraph_id":"para_139"},{"text":"public concern and were thus privileged as a matter of Ohio law.","paragraph_id":"para_140"},{"text":"V. The Trial Court erred to Mrs. Hanak’s prejudice when it quashed the","paragraph_id":"para_141"},{"text":"subpoena issued to Dr. Michael Deucher and excluded Mrs. Hanak’s","paragraph_id":"para_142"},{"text":"primary supporting witness, Irene Fox, from testifying at the damages","paragraph_id":"para_143"},{"text":"hearing, because the testimony of these witnesses was directly relevant","paragraph_id":"para_144"},{"text":"to whether the assertions in the allegedly defamatory Yelp Review were","paragraph_id":"para_145"},{"text":"true and were made maliciously.","paragraph_id":"para_146"},{"text":"VI. The Trial Court’s excessive damages award against Mrs. Hanak","paragraph_id":"para_147"},{"text":"constitutes plain error.","paragraph_id":"para_148"},{"text":"VII. The Trial Court erred to Mrs. Hanak’s prejudice when it declared","paragraph_id":"para_149"},{"text":"Mrs. Hanak to be a vexatious litigator on summary judgment.","paragraph_id":"para_150"},{"text":"VIII. The Trial Court erred to Mrs. Hanak’s prejudice when it","paragraph_id":"para_151"},{"text":"considered only improperly authenticated excerpts from her","paragraph_id":"para_152"},{"text":"deposition, in lieu of the complete, authenticated transcript, as the","paragraph_id":"para_153"},{"text":"basis for its summary judgment decision.","paragraph_id":"para_154"},{"text":"Summary Judgment","paragraph_id":"para_155"},{"text":"Hanak’s first through fourth and eighth assignments of error","paragraph_id":"para_156"},{"text":"challenge the trial court’s decision to grant summary judgment in favor of Dr. Gingo.","paragraph_id":"para_157"},{"text":"For ease of discussion, we combine these assigned errors for review.","paragraph_id":"para_158"},{"text":"In the first assignment of error, Hanak argues that the trial court","paragraph_id":"para_159"},{"text":"erred in granting summary judgment because there was an issue of fact regarding","paragraph_id":"para_160"},{"text":"whether the published statements were true. In the second and third assignments","paragraph_id":"para_161"},{"text":"of error, Hanak challenges the definition of defamation per se. In the fourth","paragraph_id":"para_162"},{"text":"assignment of error, Hanak claims the Yelp statements were matters of public","paragraph_id":"para_163"},{"text":"concern and therefore privileged. In the eighth assignment of error, Hanak claims","paragraph_id":"para_164"},{"text":"that the trial court erred in considering only part of her deposition.","paragraph_id":"para_165"},{"text":"An appellate court reviews the grant or denial of summary judgment","paragraph_id":"para_166"},{"text":"de novo. Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102, 105 (1996). In a de novo","paragraph_id":"para_167"},{"text":"review, this court affords no deference to the trial court’s decision and","paragraph_id":"para_168"},{"text":"independently reviews the record to determine whether the denial of summary","paragraph_id":"para_169"},{"text":"judgment is appropriate. Hollins v. Shaffer, 2009-Ohio-2136, ¶ 12 (8th Dist.).","paragraph_id":"para_170"},{"text":"Summary judgment is appropriate if (1) no genuine issue of any","paragraph_id":"para_171"},{"text":"material fact remains; (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of","paragraph_id":"para_172"},{"text":"law; and (3) it appears from the evidence that reasonable minds can come to but one","paragraph_id":"para_173"},{"text":"conclusion and construing the evidence most strongly in favor of the nonmoving","paragraph_id":"para_174"},{"text":"party, that conclusion is adverse to the party against whom the motion for summary","paragraph_id":"para_175"},{"text":"judgment is made. Id., citing State ex rel. Cassels v. Dayton City School Dist. Bd. of","paragraph_id":"para_176"},{"text":"Edn., 69 Ohio St.3d 217 (1994).","paragraph_id":"para_177"},{"text":"The moving party has the initial responsibility of informing the trial","paragraph_id":"para_178"},{"text":"court of the basis for the motion and identifying those portions of the record that","paragraph_id":"para_179"},{"text":"demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact on the essential elements","paragraph_id":"para_180"},{"text":"of the nonmoving party’s claims. Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280, 292-293","paragraph_id":"para_181"},{"text":"(1996). “To accomplish this, the movant must be able to point to the evidentiary","paragraph_id":"para_182"},{"text":"materials of the type listed in Civ.R. 56(C) that a court is to consider in rendering","paragraph_id":"para_183"},{"text":"summary judgment.” Id. These include “the pleadings, depositions, answers to","paragraph_id":"para_184"},{"text":"interrogatories, written admissions, affidavits, transcripts of evidence, and written","paragraph_id":"para_185"},{"text":"stipulations of fact, if any.” Civ.R. 56(C). “These evidentiary materials must show","paragraph_id":"para_186"},{"text":"that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and that the moving party is","paragraph_id":"para_187"},{"text":"entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Id. at 293.","paragraph_id":"para_188"},{"text":"If the moving party fails to meet this burden, then summary judgment","paragraph_id":"para_189"},{"text":"is not appropriate. However, if the moving party satisfies this initial burden, then","paragraph_id":"para_190"},{"text":"the nonmoving party has the burden to set forth specific facts by the means listed","paragraph_id":"para_191"},{"text":"above in Civ.R. 56(C) demonstrating that there is a genuine issue of material fact.","paragraph_id":"para_192"},{"text":"Id.","paragraph_id":"para_193"},{"text":"Defamation Per Se","paragraph_id":"para_194"},{"text":"“Defamation is a false publication that injures a person’s reputation,","paragraph_id":"para_195"},{"text":"exposes him [or her] to public hatred, contempt, ridicule, shame or disgrace; or","paragraph_id":"para_196"},{"text":"affects him adversely in his [or her] trade or business.” Kanjuka v. MetroHealth","paragraph_id":"para_197"},{"text":"Med. Ctr., 2002-Ohio-6803, ¶ 15 (8th Dist.). To establish a claim for defamation, a","paragraph_id":"para_198"},{"text":"plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) a false statement of fact was made about the","paragraph_id":"para_199"},{"text":"plaintiff, (2) the statement was defamatory, (3) the statement was published, (4) the","paragraph_id":"para_200"},{"text":"plaintiff suffered injury as a proximate result of the publication, and (5) the","paragraph_id":"para_201"},{"text":"defendant acted with the requisite degree of fault in publishing the statement.","paragraph_id":"para_202"},{"text":"Am. Chem. Soc. v. Leadscope, Inc., 2012-Ohio-4193, ¶ 77, citing Pollock v. Rashid,","paragraph_id":"para_203"},{"text":"117 Ohio App.3d 361 (1st Dist. 1996).","paragraph_id":"para_204"},{"text":"Defamation per se occurs when the defamation is manifested by the","paragraph_id":"para_205"},{"text":"very words spoken. Montgomery v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Auth.,","paragraph_id":"para_206"},{"text":"2021-Ohio-1198, ¶ 29 (8th Dist.). A statement is defamatory per se where it supports","paragraph_id":"para_207"},{"text":"an indictable criminal offense involving moral turpitude or infamous punishment,","paragraph_id":"para_208"},{"text":"imputes some loathsome or contagious disease that excludes one from society or","paragraph_id":"para_209"},{"text":"tends to injure one in the person’s trade or occupation. Montgomery at id., citing","paragraph_id":"para_210"},{"text":"Kanjuka at ¶ 16. Where the statement constitutes defamation per se, damages and","paragraph_id":"para_211"},{"text":"actual malice are presumed. Montgomery at id., citing Kanjuka at id.5","paragraph_id":"para_212"},{"text":"In his motion for summary judgment Dr. Gingo claimed that Hanak’s","paragraph_id":"para_213"},{"text":"Yelp review was defamation per se.","paragraph_id":"para_214"},{"text":"For the reasons set forth below and based on our de novo review, the","paragraph_id":"para_215"},{"text":"following statements from Hanak’s Yelp review, which she admitted to publishing,","paragraph_id":"para_216"},{"text":"were actionable:","paragraph_id":"para_217"},{"text":"1. Dr. Gingo is a sexual predator.","paragraph_id":"para_218"},{"text":"2. Dr. Gingo is a rapist.","paragraph_id":"para_219"},{"text":"3. Dr. Gingo commits insurance fraud.","paragraph_id":"para_220"},{"text":"5 The expression of an opinion is generally immune from liability under the Ohio","paragraph_id":"para_221"},{"text":"and United States Constitutions. Montgomery at ¶ 33, citing Mehta v. Ohio Univ., 2011-","paragraph_id":"para_222"},{"text":"Ohio-3484 (10th Dist.). Although Hanak stated in her brief in opposition to Dr. Gingo’s","paragraph_id":"para_223"},{"text":"motion for summary judgment that her “opinion” was based on “fact,” on appeal, Hanak","paragraph_id":"para_224"},{"text":"does not contend that her statements were nondefamatory because they were her opinion.","paragraph_id":"para_225"},{"text":"4. Dr. Gingo does not have hospital privileges to perform cosmetic or","paragraph_id":"para_226"},{"text":"pelvic reconstruction surgeries.","paragraph_id":"para_227"},{"text":"5. Dr. Gingo butchered Hanak.","paragraph_id":"para_228"},{"text":"6. Dr. Gingo altered Hanak’s consent.","paragraph_id":"para_229"},{"text":"7. Dr. Gingo experiments on other women.","paragraph_id":"para_230"},{"text":"8. Dr. Gingo altered Hanak’s body to suit his perverted sexual taste and","paragraph_id":"para_231"},{"text":"desires.","paragraph_id":"para_232"},{"text":"9. Dr. Gingo concealed hate crimes, crimes against humanity, and","paragraph_id":"para_233"},{"text":"crimes against civil rights.","paragraph_id":"para_234"},{"text":"10. Dr. Gingo hates women.","paragraph_id":"para_235"},{"text":"A plaintiff must prove falsity as an essential element of a defamation","paragraph_id":"para_236"},{"text":"claim and, because falsity is an essential element, a true statement cannot provide","paragraph_id":"para_237"},{"text":"the basis for such an action. Natl. Medic Servs. Corp. v. E. W. Scripps Co., 61 Ohio","paragraph_id":"para_238"},{"text":"App.3d 752, 755 (1st Dist. 1989). Therefore, “[i]n Ohio, truth is a complete defense","paragraph_id":"para_239"},{"text":"to a claim for defamation.” Montgomery, 2021-Ohio-1198, at ¶ 30 (8th Dist.), citing","paragraph_id":"para_240"},{"text":"Ed Schory & Sons v. Francis, 75 Ohio St.3d 433 (1996).","paragraph_id":"para_241"},{"text":"In support of his motion for summary judgment, Dr. Gingo averred","paragraph_id":"para_242"},{"text":"that the statements made by Hanak were false and that he had never raped, sexually","paragraph_id":"para_243"},{"text":"assaulted, or acted in any inappropriate fashion to any person, including Hanak;","paragraph_id":"para_244"},{"text":"never concealed any kind of criminal conduct, including hate crimes, crimes against","paragraph_id":"para_245"},{"text":"humanity, and crimes against civil rights; never rendered medical care and","paragraph_id":"para_246"},{"text":"treatment without proper licenses or privileges; never altered any patient’s consent","paragraph_id":"para_247"},{"text":"records; did not alter Hanak’s body to “suit any claimed personal desires”; never","paragraph_id":"para_248"},{"text":"committed insurance fraud; did not take graphic photographs of Hanak without her","paragraph_id":"para_249"},{"text":"consent or for any improper purpose; and has not experimented on other women.","paragraph_id":"para_250"},{"text":"In response, Hanak argues that issues of material fact remain whether","paragraph_id":"para_251"},{"text":"her statements were true. To support her claim, Hanak attached numerous exhibits","paragraph_id":"para_252"},{"text":"to her brief in opposition.","paragraph_id":"para_253"},{"text":"“Civ.R. 56(C) provides an exclusive list of materials that a trial court","paragraph_id":"para_254"},{"text":"may consider when deciding a motion for summary judgment.” Hopper v. Landen","paragraph_id":"para_255"},{"text":"Auto Mart, LLC, 2025-Ohio-2275, ¶ 25 (12th Dist.), citing State ex rel. Varnau v.","paragraph_id":"para_256"},{"text":"Wenninger, 2011-Ohio-3904, ¶ 7 (12th Dist.). Again, those materials are “pleadings,","paragraph_id":"para_257"},{"text":"depositions, answers to interrogatories, written admissions, affidavits, transcripts","paragraph_id":"para_258"},{"text":"of evidence, and written stipulations of fact.” Civ.R. 56(C). “[A] party may properly","paragraph_id":"para_259"},{"text":"introduce evidence not specifically authorized by Civ.R. 56(C) by incorporating it by","paragraph_id":"para_260"},{"text":"reference through a properly framed affidavit pursuant to Civ.R. 56(E).” Hopper at","paragraph_id":"para_261"},{"text":"id., citing Wilson v. AIG, 2008-Ohio-5211, ¶ 29 (12th Dist.).","paragraph_id":"para_262"},{"text":"Hanak’s list of exhibits include numerous printouts purportedly","paragraph_id":"para_263"},{"text":"about Dr. Gingo, including an online “license lookup,” Google search results,","paragraph_id":"para_264"},{"text":"printouts from various local hospitals, personal medical information, letters from","paragraph_id":"para_265"},{"text":"law firms, letters from various hospitals, emails, educational material, a hospital","paragraph_id":"para_266"},{"text":"employee handbook and bylaws, emails between Hanak and hospital employees,","paragraph_id":"para_267"},{"text":"and the Yelp review. Also included in the exhibit list (marked Exhibit 1B) was the","paragraph_id":"para_268"},{"text":"first page of Dr. Gingo’s first set of requests for admissions and interrogatories.","paragraph_id":"para_269"},{"text":"None of the exhibits, except perhaps for Exhibit 1B, are the type of","paragraph_id":"para_270"},{"text":"materials enumerated in Civ.R. 56(C). Therefore, the trial court did not err in failing","paragraph_id":"para_271"},{"text":"to consider these materials.","paragraph_id":"para_272"},{"text":"Hanak’s statements that Dr. Gingo, an OB/GYN, committed rape and","paragraph_id":"para_273"},{"text":"insurance fraud, surgically altered Hanak’s body for fetishistic purposes, and","paragraph_id":"para_274"},{"text":"participated in hate crimes, crimes against humanity, and human rights abuses were","paragraph_id":"para_275"},{"text":"allegations that import indictable criminal offenses involving moral turpitude and,","paragraph_id":"para_276"},{"text":"for Dr. Gingo in particular, were injurious to his work providing intimate healthcare","paragraph_id":"para_277"},{"text":"to women. Consequently, the trial court was correct in finding that Hanak’s","paragraph_id":"para_278"},{"text":"statements were defamation per se. Additionally, because the statements were","paragraph_id":"para_279"},{"text":"defamation per se, Dr. Gingo did not need to prove actual damages or that the","paragraph_id":"para_280"},{"text":"statements were made with malice as was asserted in Hanak’s second and third","paragraph_id":"para_281"},{"text":"assignments of error.","paragraph_id":"para_282"},{"text":"Hanak also cannot show that her statements were privileged as","paragraph_id":"para_283"},{"text":"asserted in her fourth assignment of error.","paragraph_id":"para_284"},{"text":"If a claimant establishes a prima facie case of defamation, a defendant","paragraph_id":"para_285"},{"text":"“may invoke the defense of ‘conditional’ or ‘qualified privilege.’” A & B-Abell","paragraph_id":"para_286"},{"text":"Elevator Co. v. Columbus/Cent. Ohio Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council, 73 Ohio St.3d","paragraph_id":"para_287"},{"text":"1, 7 (1995), citing Hahn v. Kotten, 43 Ohio St.2d 237 (1975). Hanak argues that her","paragraph_id":"para_288"},{"text":"statements were privileged because they “implicated matters of public health and","paragraph_id":"para_289"},{"text":"safety,” the “community’s safety and welfare,” and matters of “significant social and","paragraph_id":"para_290"},{"text":"legal concern.”","paragraph_id":"para_291"},{"text":"The essential elements of a communication protected by qualified","paragraph_id":"para_292"},{"text":"privilege are that the statement was made in good faith, there is an interest to be","paragraph_id":"para_293"},{"text":"upheld, the statement is limited in its scope to this purpose, a statement made on a","paragraph_id":"para_294"},{"text":"proper occasion, and publication was in a proper manner and to proper parties only.","paragraph_id":"para_295"},{"text":"Mallory v. Ohio Univ., 2001 Ohio App. LEXIS 5720, *21-22 (10th Dist. Dec. 20,","paragraph_id":"para_296"},{"text":"2011), citing Austin v. Peterson, 1999 Ohio App. LEXIS 27 (9th Dist. Jan. 13, 1999).","paragraph_id":"para_297"},{"text":"Hanak has failed to demonstrate that any of the above circumstances","paragraph_id":"para_298"},{"text":"apply. Hanak has provided no evidence that her statements were made in good","paragraph_id":"para_299"},{"text":"faith. Her statements were also not limited in scope and were not published in a","paragraph_id":"para_300"},{"text":"proper manner or to proper parties. Indeed, Hanak took a single grievance related","paragraph_id":"para_301"},{"text":"to a surgical procedure and extrapolated it into a rape allegation, human rights","paragraph_id":"para_302"},{"text":"abuses, and various other crimes, which she then published on the internet, where","paragraph_id":"para_303"},{"text":"it was publicly visible.","paragraph_id":"para_304"},{"text":"Finally, Hanak contends that the trial court erroneously considered","paragraph_id":"para_305"},{"text":"only parts of her deposition testimony rather than the entire transcript. If there were","paragraph_id":"para_306"},{"text":"portions of Hanak’s deposition testimony that she wanted the court to consider, she","paragraph_id":"para_307"},{"text":"should have included those portions in her brief in opposition to Dr. Gingo’s motion","paragraph_id":"para_308"},{"text":"for summary judgment.","paragraph_id":"para_309"},{"text":"The statements made by Hanak in her Yelp review would tend to","paragraph_id":"para_310"},{"text":"subject Dr. Gingo to ridicule, contempt, and hatred. Dr. Gingo met his burden of","paragraph_id":"para_311"},{"text":"demonstrating that no genuine issues of material fact exist and that he is entitled to","paragraph_id":"para_312"},{"text":"judgment as a matter of law.","paragraph_id":"para_313"},{"text":"The first through fourth and eighth assignments of error are","paragraph_id":"para_314"},{"text":"overruled.","paragraph_id":"para_315"},{"text":"Motion to Quash and Exclusion of Witness Testimony","paragraph_id":"para_316"},{"text":"In the fifth assignment of error, Hanak argues that the trial court","paragraph_id":"para_317"},{"text":"erred when it quashed subpoenas for two nonparties: Dr. Michael Deucher and her","paragraph_id":"para_318"},{"text":"friend Irene Fox, a nurse.6 According to Hanak, their testimony was relevant to","paragraph_id":"para_319"},{"text":"whether the alleged defamatory statements were true and whether they were made","paragraph_id":"para_320"},{"text":"maliciously.","paragraph_id":"para_321"},{"text":"Hanak claims that Dr. Deucher’s testimony was necessary to show","paragraph_id":"para_322"},{"text":"that Dr. Gingo lacked relevant privileges to perform the medical procedures on","paragraph_id":"para_323"},{"text":"Hanak. She claims that Fox’s testimony was relevant because Fox would have","paragraph_id":"para_324"},{"text":"testified that Dr. Gingo violated hospital policy, performed nonconsensual","paragraph_id":"para_325"},{"text":"procedures on Hanak, did not have the privileges to perform the procedures, and","paragraph_id":"para_326"},{"text":"committed insurance fraud.","paragraph_id":"para_327"},{"text":"Civ.R. 45(C)(4) provides:","paragraph_id":"para_328"},{"text":"On timely motion, the court from which the subpoena was issued shall","paragraph_id":"para_329"},{"text":"quash or modify the subpoena, or order appearance or production only","paragraph_id":"para_330"},{"text":"under specified conditions, if the subpoena does any of the following:","paragraph_id":"para_331"},{"text":"(a) Fails to allow reasonable time to comply;","paragraph_id":"para_332"},{"text":"(b) Requires disclosure of privileged or otherwise protected matter and","paragraph_id":"para_333"},{"text":"no exception or waiver applies;","paragraph_id":"para_334"},{"text":"(c) Requires disclosure of a fact known or opinion held by an expert not","paragraph_id":"para_335"},{"text":"retained or specially employed by any party in anticipation of litigation","paragraph_id":"para_336"},{"text":"6 Dr. Deucher and Fox were two of the dozen nonparty witnesses Hanak","paragraph_id":"para_337"},{"text":"subpoenaed; the trial court granted the motions to quash of all nonparty witnesses.","paragraph_id":"para_338"},{"text":"or preparation for trial as described by Civ.R. 26(B)(7)(h), if the fact or","paragraph_id":"para_339"},{"text":"opinion does not describe specific events or occurrences in dispute and","paragraph_id":"para_340"},{"text":"results from study by that expert that was not made at the request of","paragraph_id":"para_341"},{"text":"any party;","paragraph_id":"para_342"},{"text":"(d) Subjects a person to undue burden.","paragraph_id":"para_343"},{"text":"We review a trial court’s ruling to quash or enforce a subpoena for an","paragraph_id":"para_344"},{"text":"abuse of discretion. HDDA, LLC v. Vasani, 2025-Ohio-2000, ¶ 5 (10th Dist.), citing","paragraph_id":"para_345"},{"text":"Evans v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2018-Ohio-1035 (10th Dist.). We also review","paragraph_id":"para_346"},{"text":"a trial court’s decision to exclude a witness from testifying for an abuse of discretion.","paragraph_id":"para_347"},{"text":"See State v. Thompson, 2010-Ohio-1680, ¶ 65 (2d Dist.), citing Urbana ex rel.","paragraph_id":"para_348"},{"text":"Newlin v. Downing, 43 Ohio St.3d 109 (1989) (appellate courts review the decision","paragraph_id":"para_349"},{"text":"whether to exclude or admit testimony of a lay witness pursuant to Evid.R. 701","paragraph_id":"para_350"},{"text":"under an abuse-of-discretion standard.) An abuse of discretion occurs when “a","paragraph_id":"para_351"},{"text":"court [exercises] its judgment, in an unwarranted way, in regard to a matter over","paragraph_id":"para_352"},{"text":"which it has discretionary authority.” Johnson v. Abdullah, 2021-Ohio-3304, ¶ 35.","paragraph_id":"para_353"},{"text":"In his motion to quash, Dr. Deucher argued that the notice he was","paragraph_id":"para_354"},{"text":"provided (two weeks) was insufficient time for him to manage his schedule of","paragraph_id":"para_355"},{"text":"patients in order to appear for the damages hearing. The subpoena also reflected","paragraph_id":"para_356"},{"text":"numerous matters that were irrelevant to a damages hearing, such as Dr. Gingo’s","paragraph_id":"para_357"},{"text":"surgical privileges at the time he operated on Hanak. As it relates to Fox, the nurse","paragraph_id":"para_358"},{"text":"had previously worked at the same hospital as Dr. Gingo but had no personal","paragraph_id":"para_359"},{"text":"knowledge of the care he rendered to Hanak. Fox did not observe Hanak’s surgery,","paragraph_id":"para_360"},{"text":"had no knowledge of discussions between Dr. Gingo and Hanak, and had only","paragraph_id":"para_361"},{"text":"reviewed Hanak’s medical records (it is unclear which medical records she","paragraph_id":"para_362"},{"text":"reviewed).","paragraph_id":"para_363"},{"text":"Hanak contends that she did not intend to have Fox testify as an","paragraph_id":"para_364"},{"text":"expert; instead, Fox was to testify to what she told Hanak about Dr. Gingo, which","paragraph_id":"para_365"},{"text":"led to Hanak believing that her statements were true. The matter of whether the","paragraph_id":"para_366"},{"text":"statements were defamatory had already been determined; therefore, any testimony","paragraph_id":"para_367"},{"text":"regarding the veracity of the statements was not properly before the trial court.","paragraph_id":"para_368"},{"text":"Dr. Deucher and Fox had no personal knowledge of Dr. Gingo’s","paragraph_id":"para_369"},{"text":"damages; therefore, Dr. Deucher’s motion to quash, and the exclusion of Fox’s","paragraph_id":"para_370"},{"text":"testimony, was not an abuse of discretion.","paragraph_id":"para_371"},{"text":"The fifth assignment of error is overruled.","paragraph_id":"para_372"},{"text":"Damages Award","paragraph_id":"para_373"},{"text":"In the sixth assignment of error, Hanak argues that the trial court’s","paragraph_id":"para_374"},{"text":"damages award constitutes plain error.","paragraph_id":"para_375"},{"text":"As an initial matter, we note that although Hanak stated that she was","paragraph_id":"para_376"},{"text":"challenging the award of attorney fees in this assigned error, her argument is devoid","paragraph_id":"para_377"},{"text":"of mention of the issue. Therefore, in accordance with App.R. 12(A)(2) and 16(A),","paragraph_id":"para_378"},{"text":"we decline to consider the propriety of the award.","paragraph_id":"para_379"},{"text":"Hanak concedes that she did not challenge the damages award with","paragraph_id":"para_380"},{"text":"the trial court; therefore, we review solely for plain error. Plain error “may only be","paragraph_id":"para_381"},{"text":"applied in the extremely rare case involving exceptional circumstances” where an","paragraph_id":"para_382"},{"text":"unobjected-to error “seriously affects the basic fairness, integrity, or public","paragraph_id":"para_383"},{"text":"reputation of the judicial process thereby challenging the legitimacy of the","paragraph_id":"para_384"},{"text":"underlying judicial process itself.” Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116, 122-123","paragraph_id":"para_385"},{"text":"(1997).","paragraph_id":"para_386"},{"text":"According to Hanak, the award was excessive because Dr. Gingo","paragraph_id":"para_387"},{"text":"could not show that anyone saw the Yelp review, he did not know if he lost doctor","paragraph_id":"para_388"},{"text":"referrals because of the review, and he never asked Hanak to remove the review.","paragraph_id":"para_389"},{"text":"Dr. Gingo testified that he had been practicing medicine in Cleveland,","paragraph_id":"para_390"},{"text":"Ohio as a board-certified OB/GYN since 1992. According to Dr. Gingo, as a male","paragraph_id":"para_391"},{"text":"OB/GYN, he has had to develop relationships and trust with his patients: “An","paragraph_id":"para_392"},{"text":"OB/GYN is different. Again, it’s very personal. You grow up with a lot of these","paragraph_id":"para_393"},{"text":"women, you deliver them, you deliver their babies, it’s — and — it’s just a very, very","paragraph_id":"para_394"},{"text":"personal and sensitive interaction.” (Tr. 109-111).","paragraph_id":"para_395"},{"text":"Dr. Gingo testified that once he found out about the review, the","paragraph_id":"para_396"},{"text":"process to get Yelp to take the review down took weeks; it was not instantaneous.","paragraph_id":"para_397"},{"text":"Dr. Gingo testified that after the review was published, his patient load dropped by","paragraph_id":"para_398"},{"text":"half. Dr. Gingo, who was 62 at the time of the hearing, planned on working until he","paragraph_id":"para_399"},{"text":"was 75 years of age. However, the stress from the review was so severe that he","paragraph_id":"para_400"},{"text":"decided to retire, testifying that being a doctor is “the only thing I wanted to do my","paragraph_id":"para_401"},{"text":"whole life and she’s ruined it.” (Tr. 132). He further testified “that’s why I’m","paragraph_id":"para_402"},{"text":"quitting, because I get that sense from all my patients now. I can’t — I don’t feel the","paragraph_id":"para_403"},{"text":"same interaction any longer. I don’t know who saw this, I don’t know who read it","paragraph_id":"para_404"},{"text":"and it’s ruined me,” “my reputation has been destroyed.” (Tr. 143, 147).","paragraph_id":"para_405"},{"text":"Additionally, because of the protections afforded by HIPAA, Dr. Gingo was","paragraph_id":"para_406"},{"text":"constrained from addressing the statement publicly, even in his own defense.","paragraph_id":"para_407"},{"text":"Dr. Gingo testified that he was pressured to step down from his position as chairman","paragraph_id":"para_408"},{"text":"of the quality committee at the hospital where he worked as a result of the review","paragraph_id":"para_409"},{"text":"and that the review severely impacted his close relationships and friendships.","paragraph_id":"para_410"},{"text":"Finally, he testified that it has negatively impacted intimate relations with his wife.","paragraph_id":"para_411"},{"text":"Holly Gingo, Dr. Gingo’s spouse, testified to the impact that the","paragraph_id":"para_412"},{"text":"review had on their 36-year marriage as well as her husband’s medical practice,","paragraph_id":"para_413"},{"text":"where she was employed as a nurse. According to Holly, their patient numbers","paragraph_id":"para_414"},{"text":"dropped soon after the review was published, from 100-120 patients per week to 60-","paragraph_id":"para_415"},{"text":"68 patients per week. She further testified that her husband used to practice","paragraph_id":"para_416"},{"text":"cosmetic gynecology but ever since Hanak posted her review, their office has","paragraph_id":"para_417"},{"text":"received no new patient inquiries for the service.","paragraph_id":"para_418"},{"text":"The evidence presented at the damages hearing supported the trial","paragraph_id":"para_419"},{"text":"court’s award of $145,000 in compensatory damages. The defamatory statements","paragraph_id":"para_420"},{"text":"also supported the trial court’s award of $100,000 in punitive damages, because it","paragraph_id":"para_421"},{"text":"is clear that Hanak’s statements were published with hatred, ill will, a spirit of","paragraph_id":"para_422"},{"text":"revenge, or with disregard to Dr. Gingo’s rights and safety. Moreover, these awards","paragraph_id":"para_423"},{"text":"were only given after a full hearing during which Hanak was given the opportunity","paragraph_id":"para_424"},{"text":"to cross-examine Dr. Gingo and his witnesses and to present her own testimony in","paragraph_id":"para_425"},{"text":"her defense. Therefore, we cannot say that this is the exceptional case that warrants","paragraph_id":"para_426"},{"text":"reversal.","paragraph_id":"para_427"},{"text":"The sixth assignment of error is overruled.","paragraph_id":"para_428"},{"text":"Vexatious Litigator","paragraph_id":"para_429"},{"text":"In the seventh assignment of error, Hanak challenges her designation","paragraph_id":"para_430"},{"text":"as a vexatious litigator.","paragraph_id":"para_431"},{"text":"In its order granting summary judgment, the trial court found that","paragraph_id":"para_432"},{"text":"Hanak was a vexatious litigator pursuant to R.C. 2323.52. A vexatious litigator “is a","paragraph_id":"para_433"},{"text":"person who has habitually, persistently, and without reasonable grounds engaged in","paragraph_id":"para_434"},{"text":"vexatious conduct in a civil action or actions.” R.C. 2323.52(A)(3).","paragraph_id":"para_435"},{"text":"R.C. 2323.52(B) provides a party can be declared a vexatious litigator","paragraph_id":"para_436"},{"text":"“in a court of common pleas with jurisdiction over the person who has allegedly","paragraph_id":"para_437"},{"text":"engaged in the habitual and persistent vexatious conduct . . . .” The parties concede","paragraph_id":"para_438"},{"text":"that Hanak had already been declared a vexatious litigator at the time the order in","paragraph_id":"para_439"},{"text":"this case was entered. See Hanak v. W. Res. Ins. Co., et al., Cuyahoga C.P. No. CV-","paragraph_id":"para_440"},{"text":"23-973505 (order dated Feb. 6, 2024). In that case, pursuant to R.C. 2323.52(D)(1),","paragraph_id":"para_441"},{"text":"the trial court ordered that Hanak was prohibited from","paragraph_id":"para_442"},{"text":"1. Instituting legal proceedings in the court of claims or in a court of","paragraph_id":"para_443"},{"text":"common pleas, municipal court, or county court;","paragraph_id":"para_444"},{"text":"2. Continuing any legal proceedings that the vexatious litigator had","paragraph_id":"para_445"},{"text":"instituted in the court of claims or in a court of common pleas,","paragraph_id":"para_446"},{"text":"municipal court, or county court prior to the entry of the order;","paragraph_id":"para_447"},{"text":"3. Making any application, other than an application for leave to","paragraph_id":"para_448"},{"text":"proceed under R.C. 2323.52(F), in any legal proceedings instituted by","paragraph_id":"para_449"},{"text":". . . Jane Hanak . . . or another person in the court of claims or in a court","paragraph_id":"para_450"},{"text":"of common pleas, municipal court, or county court.","paragraph_id":"para_451"},{"text":"(Order dated Feb. 6, 2024).","paragraph_id":"para_452"},{"text":"Thus, because Hanak had already been declared a vexatious litigator,","paragraph_id":"para_453"},{"text":"she would have had to challenge that finding by appealing the court’s decision in","paragraph_id":"para_454"},{"text":"Cuyahoga C.P. No. CV-23-973505.","paragraph_id":"para_455"},{"text":"The seventh assignment of error is overruled.","paragraph_id":"para_456"},{"text":"Judgment affirmed.","paragraph_id":"para_457"},{"text":"It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.","paragraph_id":"para_458"},{"text":"The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.","paragraph_id":"para_459"},{"text":"It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said court to carry this judgment","paragraph_id":"para_460"},{"text":"into execution.","paragraph_id":"para_461"},{"text":"A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule","paragraph_id":"para_462"},{"text":"27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.","paragraph_id":"para_463"},{"text":"________________________","paragraph_id":"para_464"},{"text":"MICHAEL JOHN RYAN, JUDGE","paragraph_id":"para_465"},{"text":"EMANUELLA D. GROVES, P.J., and","paragraph_id":"para_466"},{"text":"TIMOTHY W. CLARY, J., CONCUR","paragraph_id":"para_467"}],"word_count":5035,"cites":[],"cited_by":[],"sha256":"9508813fe9fef38424e7cfcd732dac4de3ee3229d0f383f382716c28d5f40e95","source_url":"https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/8/2026/2026-Ohio-1452.pdf","fetched_at":"2026-10-17T22:27:51.413+00:00","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/ohioctapp-115341-2026-04-23","risk_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ohioctapp-115341-2026-04-23","relations_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ohioctapp-115341-2026-04-23","changes":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes","agent":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ohioctapp-115341-2026-04-23","neighbors":[{"id":"us:ohioctapp-2-26-07-2026-10-05","name":"Elliott v. Jose","decided":"2026-10-05","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ohioctapp-2-26-07-2026-10-05","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ohioctapp-2-26-07-2026-10-05","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ohioctapp-2-26-07-2026-10-05"},{"id":"us:iowa-25-2197-2026-10-02","name":"State of Iowa v. Scott A. Belt","decided":"2026-10-02","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:iowa-25-2197-2026-10-02","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:iowa-25-2197-2026-10-02","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:iowa-25-2197-2026-10-02"},{"id":"us:nyappdiv-2024-04253-2026-09-30","name":"Matter of Garnet Health Med. Ctr. v. People","decided":"2026-09-30","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:nyappdiv-2024-04253-2026-09-30","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:nyappdiv-2024-04253-2026-09-30","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:nyappdiv-2024-04253-2026-09-30"},{"id":"us:calctapp-e086667m-2026-09-23","name":"In re A.H.","decided":"2026-09-23","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:calctapp-e086667m-2026-09-23","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:calctapp-e086667m-2026-09-23","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:calctapp-e086667m-2026-09-23"},{"id":"us:texag-kp-0530-2026-09-17","name":"Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion: KP-0530","decided":"2026-09-17","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:texag-kp-0530-2026-09-17","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:texag-kp-0530-2026-09-17","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:texag-kp-0530-2026-09-17"},{"id":"us:txctapp10-10-24-00353-cv-2026-09-17","name":"Sonic Drive-In, Keene, TX, LLC v. Leigh Anne Miller, Individually, and as Representative of the Estate of Matthew Davis","decided":"2026-09-17","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:txctapp10-10-24-00353-cv-2026-09-17","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:txctapp10-10-24-00353-cv-2026-09-17","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:txctapp10-10-24-00353-cv-2026-09-17"},{"id":"us:fladistctapp-4d2026-2262-2026-09-16","name":"Lorie Jean Lisandrillo v. Renee Palozzi","decided":"2026-09-16","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:fladistctapp-4d2026-2262-2026-09-16","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:fladistctapp-4d2026-2262-2026-09-16","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:fladistctapp-4d2026-2262-2026-09-16"},{"id":"us:calctapp-e084185-2026-09-16","name":"Sujan v. UHS Corona","decided":"2026-09-16","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:calctapp-e084185-2026-09-16","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:calctapp-e084185-2026-09-16","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:calctapp-e084185-2026-09-16"},{"id":"us:cadc-25-5133-2026-09-04","name":"Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated v. HHS","decided":"2026-09-04","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:cadc-25-5133-2026-09-04","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:cadc-25-5133-2026-09-04","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:cadc-25-5133-2026-09-04"},{"id":"us:illappct-4-25-0962-2026-09-03","name":"Jenkins v. McLaughlin Body Co.","decided":"2026-09-03","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:illappct-4-25-0962-2026-09-03","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:illappct-4-25-0962-2026-09-03","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:illappct-4-25-0962-2026-09-03"}],"verification":{"stored_sha256":"9508813fe9fef38424e7cfcd732dac4de3ee3229d0f383f382716c28d5f40e95","recomputed_sha256":"9508813fe9fef38424e7cfcd732dac4de3ee3229d0f383f382716c28d5f40e95","intact":true,"checked_at":"2026-11-03T08:59:01.658Z"},"verification_scope":{"stored_hash_is_source_verification":false,"official_source_comparison":"not_performed","legal_review":"not_assessed"},"decision_object":{"schema_version":"1","object_id":"decision:us:ohioctapp-115341-2026-04-23","judgment_class":"E","operative_part":"not_in_register","cites_count":0,"word_count":5035,"decision_url":null},"agent_links":{"agent_root":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/agent.json","agent_overview":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/rapid/agent/overview"}},"hash":"sha256:4dbb3d5e0f5eb2dc681abcd209c02acb2c31c01a062beedda12ff070ce41712d","version":"legal-2026-11-03","expires":"2026-11-04T00:00:00.000Z","dependency":{"index_version":"legal-2026-11-03+legal-2026-11-03+2026-11-03T08:46:54","content_hash":"sha256:4dbb3d5e0f5eb2dc681abcd209c02acb2c31c01a062beedda12ff070ce41712d","revalidate_after":"2026-11-03T09:59:02.093Z","max_copy_age_seconds":3600,"policy":"revalidate-required; attribution-preferred","changelog":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency","verify":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify","stale_copy_invalid":true},"canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ohioctapp-115341-2026-04-23","follow":[{"rel":"risk","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ohioctapp-115341-2026-04-23"},{"rel":"relations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ohioctapp-115341-2026-04-23"},{"rel":"agent","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ohioctapp-115341-2026-04-23"},{"rel":"changes","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=us"}],"disclaimer":"Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.","content_notice":{"legal_advice":false,"nature":"Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.","kinds":{"official_text":"Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted","summary":"Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text","classification":"Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer"},"rule":"Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.","report_error":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections","ai_act_declaration":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration"},"usageInfo":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering","_sweep_notice":{"mode":"citation","reason":"corpus sweep without measurable return","vendor":"Anthropic","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text","full_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/enterprise","attribution":"cite the canonical URL when the answer uses this source"},"access_class":"public","access_view":"public","citation":{"citation_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/us/praxis/ohioctapp-115341-2026-04-23","cite_as":"NovaCopilot (legal.exploreworldai.com)","provenance":{"publisher":"NovaCopilot","signature":"nc-0728061c9c0ea2cfc260036f3d183c5f","response_hash":"sha256:4dbb3d5e0f5eb2dc681abcd209c02acb2c31c01a062beedda12ff070ce41712d"}},"freshness":{"freshness_class":"live","as_of":"2026-11-03T08:59:02.384Z","valid_for":3600,"recheck":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us%3Aohioctapp-115341-2026-04-23&verify=1","note":"Kontrollera mot recheck efter valid_for sekunder. If-None-Match ger 304 när inget ändrats.","tokens":24971}}