{"attribution":{"source":"legal.exploreworldai.com","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ohioctapp-2-26-07-2026-10-05","cite_as":"NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ohioctapp-2-26-07-2026-10-05)","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision","version":"legal-2026-10-18","fingerprint":"ewai:us:efda2f","proof":"sha256:516d6fed247245dbdd4cca57d8c1c01359c07d005982a2d62fc05cdb3742e197","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-2-26-07-2026-10-05","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":"Front matter","paragraphs":["para_1","para_2","para_3","para_4","para_5","para_6","para_7","para_8","para_9","para_10","para_11","para_12","para_13","para_14","para_15","para_16","para_17","para_18","para_19","para_20","para_21","para_22","para_23","para_24","para_25","para_26","para_27","para_28","para_29","para_30","para_31","para_32","para_33","para_34","para_35","para_36","para_37","para_38","para_39","para_40","para_41","para_42","para_43","para_44","para_45","para_46","para_47","para_48","para_49","para_50","para_51","para_52","para_53","para_54","para_55","para_56","para_57","para_58","para_59","para_60","para_61","para_62","para_63","para_64","para_65","para_66","para_67","para_68","para_69","para_70","para_71","para_72","para_73","para_74","para_75","para_76","para_77","para_78","para_79","para_80","para_81","para_82","para_83","para_84","para_85","para_86","para_87","para_88","para_89","para_90","para_91","para_92","para_93","para_94","para_95","para_96","para_97","para_98","para_99","para_100","para_101","para_102","para_103","para_104","para_105","para_106","para_107","para_108","para_109","para_110","para_111","para_112","para_113","para_114","para_115","para_116","para_117","para_118","para_119","para_120","para_121","para_122","para_123","para_124","para_125","para_126","para_127","para_128","para_129","para_130","para_131","para_132","para_133","para_134","para_135","para_136","para_137","para_138","para_139","para_140","para_141","para_142","para_143","para_144","para_145","para_146","para_147","para_148","para_149","para_150","para_151","para_152","para_153","para_154","para_155","para_156","para_157","para_158","para_159","para_160","para_161","para_162","para_163","para_164","para_165","para_166","para_167","para_168","para_169","para_170","para_171","para_172","para_173","para_174","para_175","para_176","para_177","para_178","para_179","para_180","para_181","para_182","para_183","para_184","para_185","para_186","para_187","para_188","para_189","para_190","para_191","para_192","para_193","para_194","para_195","para_196","para_197","para_198","para_199","para_200","para_201","para_202","para_203","para_204","para_205","para_206","para_207","para_208","para_209","para_210","para_211","para_212","para_213","para_214","para_215","para_216","para_217","para_218","para_219","para_220","para_221","para_222","para_223","para_224","para_225","para_226","para_227","para_228","para_229","para_230","para_231","para_232","para_233","para_234","para_235","para_236","para_237","para_238","para_239","para_240","para_241","para_242","para_243","para_244","para_245","para_246","para_247","para_248","para_249","para_250","para_251","para_252","para_253","para_254","para_255","para_256","para_257","para_258","para_259","para_260","para_261","para_262","para_263","para_264","para_265","para_266","para_267","para_268","para_269","para_270","para_271","para_272","para_273","para_274","para_275","para_276","para_277","para_278","para_279","para_280","para_281","para_282","para_283","para_284","para_285","para_286","para_287","para_288","para_289","para_290","para_291","para_292","para_293","para_294","para_295","para_296","para_297","para_298","para_299"],"kind":"front_matter"}],"paragraphs":[{"text":"[Cite as Elliott v. Jose, 2026-Ohio-3917.]","paragraph_id":"para_1"},{"text":"IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO","paragraph_id":"para_2"},{"text":"THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT","paragraph_id":"para_3"},{"text":"AUGLAIZE COUNTY","paragraph_id":"para_4"},{"text":"ERIC J. ELLIOTT,","paragraph_id":"para_5"},{"text":"PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,","paragraph_id":"para_6"},{"text":"v.","paragraph_id":"para_7"},{"text":"DR. MATHEW M. JOSE, ET AL.,","paragraph_id":"para_8"},{"text":"DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.","paragraph_id":"para_9"},{"text":"CASE NO. 2-26-07","paragraph_id":"para_10"},{"text":"OPINION AND","paragraph_id":"para_11"},{"text":"JUDGMENT ENTRY","paragraph_id":"para_12"},{"text":"Appeal from Auglaize County Common Pleas Court","paragraph_id":"para_13"},{"text":"Trial Court No. 2025-CV-0175","paragraph_id":"para_14"},{"text":"Judgment Affirmed","paragraph_id":"para_15"},{"text":"Date of Decision: October 5, 2026","paragraph_id":"para_16"},{"text":"APPEARANCES:","paragraph_id":"para_17"},{"text":"Eric J. Elliott Appellant","paragraph_id":"para_18"},{"text":"Michael F. Lyon and James S. Ginocchio for Appellees Gregory","paragraph_id":"para_19"},{"text":"Griffin, D.O. and Seth O. Agiro","paragraph_id":"para_20"},{"text":"Karin M. Long for Appellees Suri Vanan, M.D. and Grand Lake","paragraph_id":"para_21"},{"text":"Physician","paragraph_id":"para_22"},{"text":"Case No. 2-26-07","paragraph_id":"para_23"},{"text":"-2-","paragraph_id":"para_24"},{"text":"Michael D. Rice and Brian Sullivan for Appellees Mathew Adrian,","paragraph_id":"para_25"},{"text":"M.D. and Mercy Health – St. Rita’s Medical Center","paragraph_id":"para_26"},{"text":"Michael P. Murphy and Holly Marie Wilson for Appellee Mathew M.","paragraph_id":"para_27"},{"text":"Jose, M.D.","paragraph_id":"para_28"},{"text":"WALDICK, J.","paragraph_id":"para_29"},{"text":"{¶1} Plaintiff-appellant, Eric J. Elliott (“Elliott”), brings this appeal from the","paragraph_id":"para_30"},{"text":"May 26, 2026 judgment of the Auglaize County Common Pleas Court denying his","paragraph_id":"para_31"},{"text":"motions to reconsider and granting summary judgment in favor of defendants-","paragraph_id":"para_32"},{"text":"appellees Dr. Vanan, Grand Lake Physician Practices (“GLPP”), Dr. Andrien, Dr.","paragraph_id":"para_33"},{"text":"Griffin, Mercy Health St. Rita’s, and Dr. Agiro (defendants are collectively referred","paragraph_id":"para_34"},{"text":"to in this opinion as “appellees”).1 For the reasons that follow, we affirm the","paragraph_id":"para_35"},{"text":"judgment of the trial court.","paragraph_id":"para_36"},{"text":"Background","paragraph_id":"para_37"},{"text":"{¶2} On October 20, 2025, Elliott filed a pro se medical","paragraph_id":"para_38"},{"text":"negligence/malpractice action against appellees.2 The “factual background” stated","paragraph_id":"para_39"},{"text":"by Elliott in his complaint reads as follows:","paragraph_id":"para_40"},{"text":"1 At oral argument, Elliott seemed to concede that the only appellee he was seeking summary judgment","paragraph_id":"para_41"},{"text":"reversal for was GLPP.","paragraph_id":"para_42"},{"text":"2 Elliott also attempted to seek recovery under HIPAA and Ohio Revised Code 3701.74 (related to medical","paragraph_id":"para_43"},{"text":"records); however, the trial court granted motions to dismiss these claims against appellees, finding that the","paragraph_id":"para_44"},{"text":"statutes did not authorize private causes of action for money damages.","paragraph_id":"para_45"},{"text":"Case No. 2-26-07","paragraph_id":"para_46"},{"text":"-3-","paragraph_id":"para_47"},{"text":"In [Month/Year]3, Plaintiff presented with symptoms indicative of a","paragraph_id":"para_48"},{"text":"neurological mass, including [list symptoms]. Despite these red flags,","paragraph_id":"para_49"},{"text":"Defendants failed to order or interpret critical imaging timely. When","paragraph_id":"para_50"},{"text":"imaging was performed, the October 3rd CT scan clearly showed","paragraph_id":"para_51"},{"text":"abnormal findings consistent with a craniopharyngioma. This","paragraph_id":"para_52"},{"text":"information was withheld from Plaintiff, delaying treatment and","paragraph_id":"para_53"},{"text":"allowing the tumor to progress. Subsequent care was characterized by:","paragraph_id":"para_54"},{"text":"* Repeated failures to schedule timely follow-ups * Administration of","paragraph_id":"para_55"},{"text":"contraindicated medications. * Ignoring Plaintiff’s repeated requests","paragraph_id":"para_56"},{"text":"for care and accommodation. * Resistance to releasing complete","paragraph_id":"para_57"},{"text":"medical records, necessitating formal HIPAA requests. As a direct","paragraph_id":"para_58"},{"text":"result, Plaintiff experienced worsening vision, endocrine dysfunction,","paragraph_id":"para_59"},{"text":"cognitive decline, and psychological trauma. Multiple emergency","paragraph_id":"para_60"},{"text":"room visits, including those on February [date] and September 1,","paragraph_id":"para_61"},{"text":"2024, were directly traceable to Defendants’ failures.","paragraph_id":"para_62"},{"text":"(Doc. No. 1).","paragraph_id":"para_63"},{"text":"{¶3} Affidavits attached to Elliott’s complaint indicated that “[t]he essence","paragraph_id":"para_64"},{"text":"of this case is that the plaintiff suffered from a craniopharyngioma [a benign, slow-","paragraph_id":"para_65"},{"text":"growing tumor] which went undetected by all of the defendants causing a delay in","paragraph_id":"para_66"},{"text":"its treatment.” Stated differently, Elliott alleged that he first went to an emergency","paragraph_id":"para_67"},{"text":"room in February of 2024 complaining of headaches, visual issues and sinus","paragraph_id":"para_68"},{"text":"problems. Elliott indicated that despite persistent sinus and neurological complaints,","paragraph_id":"para_69"},{"text":"imaging was not ordered until September 9, 2024, after several further medical","paragraph_id":"para_70"},{"text":"appointments. The imaging revealed a benign tumor, which Elliott claimed grew in","paragraph_id":"para_71"},{"text":"3 As stated by multiple appellees both to this Court and the trial court, many of Elliott’s filings contained","paragraph_id":"para_72"},{"text":"areas that were likely produced by artificial intelligence and the filings contained blanks/prompts that were","paragraph_id":"para_73"},{"text":"meant to be filled-in later with specifics.","paragraph_id":"para_74"},{"text":"Case No. 2-26-07","paragraph_id":"para_75"},{"text":"-4-","paragraph_id":"para_76"},{"text":"size due to the delay in its discovery and caused him issues. Elliott sought","paragraph_id":"para_77"},{"text":"compensatory and punitive damages in the “multi-million dollar range.”4","paragraph_id":"para_78"},{"text":"{¶4} Appellees filed answers denying Elliott’s claims. The parties then","paragraph_id":"para_79"},{"text":"engaged in discovery and motion practice. Notably, Elliott issued discovery requests","paragraph_id":"para_80"},{"text":"and other filings that were not in compliance with the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure.","paragraph_id":"para_81"},{"text":"For example, Elliott failed to comply with Civil Rule 5 regarding service and some","paragraph_id":"para_82"},{"text":"of Elliott’s discovery requests were “not capable of response[s] as expected by the","paragraph_id":"para_83"},{"text":"Civil Rules.”5","paragraph_id":"para_84"},{"text":"{¶5} After significant discovery had been exchanged, Elliott filed a motion","paragraph_id":"para_85"},{"text":"seeking additional discovery that would identify treating providers and record","paragraph_id":"para_86"},{"text":"custodians. He claimed that records he had received appeared incomplete or","paragraph_id":"para_87"},{"text":"inconsistent. Elliott claimed that he still needed, inter alia, “metadata” and “audit","paragraph_id":"para_88"},{"text":"trails” related to his care. Appellees responded indicating that Elliott was already in","paragraph_id":"para_89"},{"text":"possession of all his medical records as exhibited by the records he attached to his","paragraph_id":"para_90"},{"text":"motions and pleadings.","paragraph_id":"para_91"},{"text":"{¶6} Elliott designated one expert witness for his case, Dr. Michael","paragraph_id":"para_92"},{"text":"Hopfenspriger, an otolaryngologist. However, Dr. Hopfenspriger provided his","paragraph_id":"para_93"},{"text":"opinion only with regard to the scope of otolaryngology. Thus he provided no","paragraph_id":"para_94"},{"text":"4 Appellees filed a motion to bifurcate and stay discovery related to Elliott’s request for punitive damages","paragraph_id":"para_95"},{"text":"pursuant to R.C. 2315.21, and that motion was granted.","paragraph_id":"para_96"},{"text":"5 For example, Elliott issued “Requests for Admission” that contained requests such as “Admit that no","paragraph_id":"para_97"},{"text":"imaging was ordered at Visit X” and “Admit that no imaging was ordered at Visit Y[.]”","paragraph_id":"para_98"},{"text":"Case No. 2-26-07","paragraph_id":"para_99"},{"text":"-5-","paragraph_id":"para_100"},{"text":"admissible opinions with regard to any deficiencies of the emergency room medical","paragraph_id":"para_101"},{"text":"personnel Elliott had filed complaints against, which included appellees Dr. Griffin","paragraph_id":"para_102"},{"text":"and Dr. Agiro, as to how they violated the standard of care or how they proximately","paragraph_id":"para_103"},{"text":"caused Elliott harm. Further, Dr. Hopfenspriger “expressed no opinion regarding","paragraph_id":"para_104"},{"text":"any breach of a standard of care by Dr. Vanan – possibly for the reason that [Elliott]","paragraph_id":"para_105"},{"text":"never consulted with Dr. Vanan.”","paragraph_id":"para_106"},{"text":"{¶7} Appellees moved for summary judgment in this matter, and summary","paragraph_id":"para_107"},{"text":"judgment was granted to all appellees except Grand Lake Physician Practices. The","paragraph_id":"para_108"},{"text":"trial court determined that the expert affidavit submitted by Dr. Hopfenspriger did","paragraph_id":"para_109"},{"text":"question the standard of care at GLPP by a nurse practitioner and a physician’s","paragraph_id":"para_110"},{"text":"assistant; however, neither individual was named as a party to this action. Moreover,","paragraph_id":"para_111"},{"text":"the trial court held that the affidavit submitted by Elliott failed to demonstrate that","paragraph_id":"para_112"},{"text":"his expert “met the practice requirements set forth in Evidence Rule 601(A)(2)(b).”","paragraph_id":"para_113"},{"text":"Elliott was given 14 days to establish a foundation for the expert opinions by Dr.","paragraph_id":"para_114"},{"text":"Hopfenspirger as to the employees of GLPP.","paragraph_id":"para_115"},{"text":"{¶8} On May 18, 2026, Elliott provided a supplemental affidavit establishing","paragraph_id":"para_116"},{"text":"that Dr. Hopfenspirger met the practice requirements in Evid.R. 601(A)(2)(b).","paragraph_id":"para_117"},{"text":"Nevertheless, the expert’s supplemental report stated as follows with regard to","paragraph_id":"para_118"},{"text":"causation:","paragraph_id":"para_119"},{"text":"9. I am not offering an opinion that the delay probably caused","paragraph_id":"para_120"},{"text":"significant objective tumor progression, additional structural damage,","paragraph_id":"para_121"},{"text":"Case No. 2-26-07","paragraph_id":"para_122"},{"text":"-6-","paragraph_id":"para_123"},{"text":"or made the surgery materially more difficult, unless additional","paragraph_id":"para_124"},{"text":"records support that conclusion. Based on the records I have reviewed,","paragraph_id":"para_125"},{"text":"that issue remains limited.","paragraph_id":"para_126"},{"text":"{¶9} In addition to filing the supplemental affidavit, Elliott filed motions to","paragraph_id":"para_127"},{"text":"reconsider the trial court’s summary judgment decisions, which were not final","paragraph_id":"para_128"},{"text":"orders. On May 26, 2026, the trial court filed final judgment entries granting","paragraph_id":"para_129"},{"text":"summary judgment to GLPP, the last remaining defendant, and holding that the","paragraph_id":"para_130"},{"text":"undisputed facts showed that Elliott had no medical testimony to support that any","paragraph_id":"para_131"},{"text":"conduct by GLPP (or the other appellees) proximately caused harm to him. Thus","paragraph_id":"para_132"},{"text":"summary judgment was also granted to GLPP and Elliott’s motions to reconsider","paragraph_id":"para_133"},{"text":"were overruled.","paragraph_id":"para_134"},{"text":"{¶10} Elliott now brings the instant appeal challenging the trial court’s","paragraph_id":"para_135"},{"text":"determinations, asserting the following assignments of error for our review.","paragraph_id":"para_136"},{"text":"Assignment of Error No. 1","paragraph_id":"para_137"},{"text":"The trial court erred and abused its discretion by granting","paragraph_id":"para_138"},{"text":"summary judgment while Plaintiff’s Civ.R. 56(F) discovery into","paragraph_id":"para_139"},{"text":"provider-controlled facts necessary for expert causation review","paragraph_id":"para_140"},{"text":"remained unresolved, deferred, or stayed.","paragraph_id":"para_141"},{"text":"Assignment of Error No. 2","paragraph_id":"para_142"},{"text":"The trial court erred by equating Plaintiff’s patient access to","paragraph_id":"para_143"},{"text":"medical records with discovery access to provider-controlled","paragraph_id":"para_144"},{"text":"system evidence necessary to evaluate causation, including audit","paragraph_id":"para_145"},{"text":"trails, routing logs, metadata, access records, result-transmission","paragraph_id":"para_146"},{"text":"records, acknowledgment records, and provider communications.","paragraph_id":"para_147"},{"text":"Case No. 2-26-07","paragraph_id":"para_148"},{"text":"-7-","paragraph_id":"para_149"},{"text":"Assignment of Error No. 3","paragraph_id":"para_150"},{"text":"The trial court abused its discretion by allowing compressed","paragraph_id":"para_151"},{"text":"dispositive-motion practice and discovery restrictions to proceed","paragraph_id":"para_152"},{"text":"after Plaintiff placed the court on notice that disability-related","paragraph_id":"para_153"},{"text":"limitations affected litigation pacing, processing load,","paragraph_id":"para_154"},{"text":"communication-load tolerance, and meaningful participation.","paragraph_id":"para_155"},{"text":"{¶11} Due to the nature of the discussion, we elect to address the assignments","paragraph_id":"para_156"},{"text":"of error together.","paragraph_id":"para_157"},{"text":"First, Second, and Third Assignments of Error","paragraph_id":"para_158"},{"text":"{¶12} In his assignments of error, Elliott argues that the trial court erred by","paragraph_id":"para_159"},{"text":"granting summary judgment to appellees and by overruling his motions for","paragraph_id":"para_160"},{"text":"reconsideration. More specifically, Elliott contends that the trial court erred by","paragraph_id":"para_161"},{"text":"granting summary judgment before he had received “complete discovery.”","paragraph_id":"para_162"},{"text":"Standards of Review","paragraph_id":"para_163"},{"text":"{¶13} An appellate court reviews a trial court’s decision on a motion for","paragraph_id":"para_164"},{"text":"summary judgment de novo. Birkmeier v. St. Rita’s Med. Ctr., 2018-Ohio-2343, ¶","paragraph_id":"para_165"},{"text":"14 (3d Dist). Trial courts may grant a motion for summary judgment when “(1) no","paragraph_id":"para_166"},{"text":"genuine issue as to any material fact remains to be litigated, (2) the moving party is","paragraph_id":"para_167"},{"text":"entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and (3) it appears from the evidence that","paragraph_id":"para_168"},{"text":"reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion and that conclusion is adverse to","paragraph_id":"para_169"},{"text":"Case No. 2-26-07","paragraph_id":"para_170"},{"text":"-8-","paragraph_id":"para_171"},{"text":"the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made.” Hamilton v.","paragraph_id":"para_172"},{"text":"Hector, 117 Ohio App.3d 816, 819 (3d Dist. 1997).","paragraph_id":"para_173"},{"text":"{¶14} The party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of showing","paragraph_id":"para_174"},{"text":"that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a","paragraph_id":"para_175"},{"text":"matter of law. Dresher v. Burt, 1996-Ohio-107. Additionally, “‘upon appeal from","paragraph_id":"para_176"},{"text":"summary judgment, the reviewing court should look at the record in the light most","paragraph_id":"para_177"},{"text":"favorable to the party opposing the motion.’” Hamilton, quoting Campbell v. Hosp.","paragraph_id":"para_178"},{"text":"Motor Inns, Inc., 24 Ohio St.3d 54, 58 (1986). Once the moving party satisfies its","paragraph_id":"para_179"},{"text":"burden, the nonmoving party “may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of","paragraph_id":"para_180"},{"text":"the party’s pleadings, but the party’s response, by affidavit or as otherwise provided","paragraph_id":"para_181"},{"text":"in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for","paragraph_id":"para_182"},{"text":"trial.” Civ.R. 56(E).","paragraph_id":"para_183"},{"text":"{¶15} By contrast, a trial court’s determination on a motion for","paragraph_id":"para_184"},{"text":"reconsideration will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion.","paragraph_id":"para_185"},{"text":"Creddu v. Clough, 2012-Ohio-2242, ¶ 25 (11th Dist.).","paragraph_id":"para_186"},{"text":"Analysis","paragraph_id":"para_187"},{"text":"{¶16} At the outset of our review, we emphasize that Elliott has produced no","paragraph_id":"para_188"},{"text":"admissible evidence from his expert indicating that any of the appellees proximately","paragraph_id":"para_189"},{"text":"caused him harm. Rather, the only evidence in the record from an expert witness","paragraph_id":"para_190"},{"text":"indicates that Elliott’s “craniopharyngioma is a very rare, slow-growing, benign","paragraph_id":"para_191"},{"text":"Case No. 2-26-07","paragraph_id":"para_192"},{"text":"-9-","paragraph_id":"para_193"},{"text":"tumor. Scientifically, more likely than not, Mr. Elliott suffered absolutely no change","paragraph_id":"para_194"},{"text":"in his treatment, outcome, prognosis or harm of any kind whatsoever related to the","paragraph_id":"para_195"},{"text":"timing with which he received his results or the subsequent care for his","paragraph_id":"para_196"},{"text":"craniopharyngioma.” (Doc. No. 100, Ex. A.). In fact, Elliott’s expert specifically","paragraph_id":"para_197"},{"text":"stated that he was “not offering an opinion that the delay probably caused significant","paragraph_id":"para_198"},{"text":"objective tumor progression, additional structural damage, or made the surgery","paragraph_id":"para_199"},{"text":"materially more difficult, unless additional records support that conclusion.”","paragraph_id":"para_200"},{"text":"{¶17} Moreover, as the trial court determined, Elliott’s expert was only","paragraph_id":"para_201"},{"text":"qualified to provide an opinion related to otolaryngology, which meant there was","paragraph_id":"para_202"},{"text":"no admissible evidence establishing any liability by emergency room appellees Dr.","paragraph_id":"para_203"},{"text":"Agiro and Dr. Griffin. Elliott also was never treated by Dr. Vanan because Elliott","paragraph_id":"para_204"},{"text":"himself canceled his appointment, thus establishing no duty of care related to that","paragraph_id":"para_205"},{"text":"defendant even if there was evidence of proximate causation, which there is not.","paragraph_id":"para_206"},{"text":"{¶18} Therefore, all of Elliott’s claims failed either because Elliott did not","paragraph_id":"para_207"},{"text":"have expert testimony establishing that any appellee violated the applicable standard","paragraph_id":"para_208"},{"text":"of care, or, in the instance of GLPP, Elliott did not have expert testimony","paragraph_id":"para_209"},{"text":"establishing that any member of GLPP’s staff was the proximate cause of an injury.","paragraph_id":"para_210"},{"text":"Hitch v. Thomas, 2010-Ohio-3630, ¶ 17 (6th Dist.) (“To establish a claim of","paragraph_id":"para_211"},{"text":"medical malpractice, a plaintiff must prove by expert testimony the applicable","paragraph_id":"para_212"},{"text":"standard of care, a breach of that standard of care, and that the breach was a","paragraph_id":"para_213"},{"text":"proximate cause of the injuries alleged.”).","paragraph_id":"para_214"},{"text":"Case No. 2-26-07","paragraph_id":"para_215"},{"text":"-10-","paragraph_id":"para_216"},{"text":"{¶19} Elliott seeks to subvert the trial court’s summary judgment ruling on","paragraph_id":"para_217"},{"text":"appeal by claiming that he needed more discovery to establish the issues of duty of","paragraph_id":"para_218"},{"text":"care and/or proximate cause. Elliott argues that the “core error is simple: the trial","paragraph_id":"para_219"},{"text":"court converted unresolved discovery into a merits failure.” (Appt.’s Br. at 8). Elliott","paragraph_id":"para_220"},{"text":"contends that he sought “meta data” and “audit trails” that were not provided to him","paragraph_id":"para_221"},{"text":"in discovery.","paragraph_id":"para_222"},{"text":"{¶20} However, as multiple appellees point-out, discovery was exchanged in","paragraph_id":"para_223"},{"text":"this matter and Elliott had unfettered access to his own medical records.","paragraph_id":"para_224"},{"text":"Nevertheless, Elliott actually attempted to compel appellees on multiple occasions","paragraph_id":"para_225"},{"text":"to provide medical records for Elliott for instances wherein Elliott was not even","paragraph_id":"para_226"},{"text":"treated by the appellees. The trial court determined that such requests were declared","paragraph_id":"para_227"},{"text":"a “nullity” as noncompliant with civil rules. Elliott repeatedly requested discovery","paragraph_id":"para_228"},{"text":"in manners that were not compliant with civil rules, leading to the trial court making","paragraph_id":"para_229"},{"text":"the following ruling:","paragraph_id":"para_230"},{"text":"Thus, the Court directs Plaintiff to fully comply with all Ohio Rules","paragraph_id":"para_231"},{"text":"of Civil Procedure, Local Rules of this Court and all other applicable","paragraph_id":"para_232"},{"text":"rules and legal standards. The use of artificial intelligence to assist","paragraph_id":"para_233"},{"text":"with litigation procedures is acknowledged as a current device;","paragraph_id":"para_234"},{"text":"however, such assistance does not excuse Plaintiff or any other","paragraph_id":"para_235"},{"text":"counsel from noncompliance with Rules, lack of accuracy or research,","paragraph_id":"para_236"},{"text":"etc.","paragraph_id":"para_237"},{"text":"(Doc. No. 53).","paragraph_id":"para_238"},{"text":"Case No. 2-26-07","paragraph_id":"para_239"},{"text":"-11-","paragraph_id":"para_240"},{"text":"{¶21} Because of Elliott’s numerous, non-compliant filings, the trial court","paragraph_id":"para_241"},{"text":"placed limits on discovery, but only after Elliott had received discovery from the","paragraph_id":"para_242"},{"text":"appellees. Nevertheless, despite the trial court’s ruling, Elliott continued to issue","paragraph_id":"para_243"},{"text":"discovery requests, baldly making claims that meta data or an audit trail would have","paragraph_id":"para_244"},{"text":"provided information from which his expert could have extrapolated proximate","paragraph_id":"para_245"},{"text":"cause (or in some cases, a standard of care).","paragraph_id":"para_246"},{"text":"{¶22} We note that trial courts have broad discretion over discovery matters.","paragraph_id":"para_247"},{"text":"State ex rel. Mason v. Burnside, 2007-Ohio-6754, ¶ 11. As the record clearly","paragraph_id":"para_248"},{"text":"established that significant discovery had been exchanged and Elliott had been","paragraph_id":"para_249"},{"text":"repeatedly noncompliant with the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure, we can find no","paragraph_id":"para_250"},{"text":"abuse of discretion with the trial court’s ruling related to discovery. Moreover, this","paragraph_id":"para_251"},{"text":"is particularly true given that Civ.R. 56(B) allows a defending party to file for","paragraph_id":"para_252"},{"text":"summary judgment at any time before a trial has been set.","paragraph_id":"para_253"},{"text":"{¶23} Simply put, discovery had been exchanged. Elliott had access to his","paragraph_id":"para_254"},{"text":"own medical records. Appellees moved for summary judgment. Elliott did not","paragraph_id":"para_255"},{"text":"produce any evidence establishing either a breach of the standard of care or of","paragraph_id":"para_256"},{"text":"proximate cause by the appellees. Therefore, Elliott has not shown any abuse of","paragraph_id":"para_257"},{"text":"discretion related to the trial court’s discovery orders, and he has not shown that the","paragraph_id":"para_258"},{"text":"trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of appellees. He has also","paragraph_id":"para_259"},{"text":"not shown that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motions to","paragraph_id":"para_260"},{"text":"reconsider.","paragraph_id":"para_261"},{"text":"Case No. 2-26-07","paragraph_id":"para_262"},{"text":"-12-","paragraph_id":"para_263"},{"text":"{¶24} Finally, we note that Elliott argues that the trial court erred by not","paragraph_id":"para_264"},{"text":"providing disability-related accommodations. However, in making his argument, he","paragraph_id":"para_265"},{"text":"largely complains that appellees characterized his numerous filings as excessive or","paragraph_id":"para_266"},{"text":"improper. He does not point to any specific actions by the trial court that violated","paragraph_id":"para_267"},{"text":"his rights; rather, he contends that the “compressed litigation timing” was difficult","paragraph_id":"para_268"},{"text":"for him due to his disability.","paragraph_id":"para_269"},{"text":"{¶25} Elliott contends that he was deprived of a fair opportunity to oppose","paragraph_id":"para_270"},{"text":"summary judgment, but the record reflects otherwise. The trial court provided Elliott","paragraph_id":"para_271"},{"text":"the ability to respond to the summary judgment motions, the ability to correct his","paragraph_id":"para_272"},{"text":"deficient expert affidavit, and the ability to file motions for reconsideration. There","paragraph_id":"para_273"},{"text":"is no indication that the trial court denied Elliott any reasonable accommodations","paragraph_id":"para_274"},{"text":"for a disability. For all of these reasons, Elliott’s first, second, and third assignments","paragraph_id":"para_275"},{"text":"of error are overruled.","paragraph_id":"para_276"},{"text":"Conclusion","paragraph_id":"para_277"},{"text":"{¶26} Having found no error prejudicial to Elliott in the particulars assigned","paragraph_id":"para_278"},{"text":"and argued, his assignments of error are overruled and the judgment of the Auglaize","paragraph_id":"para_279"},{"text":"County Common Pleas Court is affirmed.","paragraph_id":"para_280"},{"text":"Judgment Affirmed","paragraph_id":"para_281"},{"text":"ZIMMERMAN, P.J. and WILLAMOWSKI, J., concur.","paragraph_id":"para_282"},{"text":"Case No. 2-26-07","paragraph_id":"para_283"},{"text":"-13-","paragraph_id":"para_284"},{"text":"JUDGMENT ENTRY","paragraph_id":"para_285"},{"text":"For the reasons stated in the opinion of this Court, the assignments of error","paragraph_id":"para_286"},{"text":"are overruled and it is the judgment and order of this Court that the judgment of the","paragraph_id":"para_287"},{"text":"trial court is affirmed with costs assessed to Appellant for which judgment is hereby","paragraph_id":"para_288"},{"text":"rendered. The cause is hereby remanded to the trial court for execution of the","paragraph_id":"para_289"},{"text":"judgment for costs.","paragraph_id":"para_290"},{"text":"It is further ordered that the Clerk of this Court certify a copy of this Court’s","paragraph_id":"para_291"},{"text":"judgment entry and opinion to the trial court as the mandate prescribed by App.R.","paragraph_id":"para_292"},{"text":"27; and serve a copy of this Court’s judgment entry and opinion on each party to the","paragraph_id":"para_293"},{"text":"proceedings and note the date of service in the docket. See App.R. 30.","paragraph_id":"para_294"},{"text":"Juergen A. Waldick, Judge","paragraph_id":"para_295"},{"text":"William R. Zimmerman, Judge","paragraph_id":"para_296"},{"text":"John R. Willamowski, Judge","paragraph_id":"para_297"},{"text":"DATED:","paragraph_id":"para_298"},{"text":"/jlm","paragraph_id":"para_299"}],"word_count":2794,"cites":[],"cited_by":[],"sha256":"52a17ab6e067fa3434723ec5ec15a2e8c4f1a8ddde12a5c30651a3ae1af58691","source_url":"https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/3/2026/2026-Ohio-3917.pdf","fetched_at":"2026-10-11T01:07:48.433+00:00","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/ohioctapp-2-26-07-2026-10-05","risk_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ohioctapp-2-26-07-2026-10-05","relations_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ohioctapp-2-26-07-2026-10-05","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-2-26-07-2026-10-05","verification":{"stored_sha256":"52a17ab6e067fa3434723ec5ec15a2e8c4f1a8ddde12a5c30651a3ae1af58691","recomputed_sha256":"52a17ab6e067fa3434723ec5ec15a2e8c4f1a8ddde12a5c30651a3ae1af58691","intact":true,"checked_at":"2026-10-18T03:35:54.557Z"}},"hash":"sha256:516d6fed247245dbdd4cca57d8c1c01359c07d005982a2d62fc05cdb3742e197","version":"legal-2026-10-18","expires":"2026-10-19T00:00:00.000Z","dependency":{"index_version":"legal-2026-10-18+legal-2026-10-18+2026-10-18T01:46:51","content_hash":"sha256:516d6fed247245dbdd4cca57d8c1c01359c07d005982a2d62fc05cdb3742e197","revalidate_after":"2026-10-18T04:35:55.171Z","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-2-26-07-2026-10-05","follow":[{"rel":"risk","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ohioctapp-2-26-07-2026-10-05"},{"rel":"relations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ohioctapp-2-26-07-2026-10-05"},{"rel":"agent","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ohioctapp-2-26-07-2026-10-05"},{"rel":"obligations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obligation-chain"},{"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-2-26-07-2026-10-05","cite_as":"NovaCopilot (legal.exploreworldai.com)","provenance":{"publisher":"NovaCopilot","signature":"nc-e7a4e5808705ba7e3db0c0a949f17868","response_hash":"sha256:516d6fed247245dbdd4cca57d8c1c01359c07d005982a2d62fc05cdb3742e197"}},"freshness":{"freshness_class":"live","as_of":"2026-11-03T07:21:12.372Z","valid_for":3600,"recheck":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us%3Aohioctapp-2-26-07-2026-10-05&verify=1","note":"Kontrollera mot recheck efter valid_for sekunder. If-None-Match ger 304 när inget ändrats.","tokens":12897}}