Supreme Court of Ohio Clerk of Court - Filed June 01, Case No

Transcription

1 Supreme Court of Ohio Clerk of Court - Filed June 01, Case No IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO Case NO STATE EX REL.KAREN CLINTON ) Appellant ) vs MetroHealthSystem Appellee ) On Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Appeals, ) Eighth Appellate District ) Court of Appeals Case No. CA Motion for Reconsideration of Jurisdiction Terry Jennrich Barbara Marburger # Euclid Ave Cuyahoga County Prosecutor s Office Cleveland, Ohio th Justice Center, Courts Tower, 8 Floor (216) ext Ontario St (216) Cleveland, Ohio tjennrich@nrsinjurylaw.com ; fax Bmarburger@prosecutor.cuyahogacounty.us Attorney for Appellant Attorney for Appellee

2 Now comes Appellant pursuant to the Rules of the Supreme Court and moves the Court for a Reconsideration of the Jurisdictional Factors of the Appeal as summarized below. The Ct of Appeals erred [at paragraph 41 of its Journal Entry and Opinion] in finding Clinton was unreasonable in waiting until 2010 to file her action in mandamus in reference to documents she had requested in 2007 Record Request Nos. 1,2,5,7,8,9,10,11,13, 14,15,19,20, and 21. Her reason for waiting until 2010 to file a second mandamus action was to give Metro a nd 2 chance to comply with her requests. By 2010, then the Cuyahoga County corruption scandal had become a widely publicized scandal. V.P. John Carroll and Tom Greco (Metro Employees) had been indicted and terminated for their kick back contract repair schemes [and destroying public records to hide that illegal activity]. and thus they were no longer directing the Metro coverup of her record requests made in 2007 and in Since there is no time limit stated in ORC sec ( C ) (1), the Court of Appeals erred in finding Clinton s mandamus action untimely with respect to record requests nos 1,2,5,7,8,9,10,11,13,14,15,19,20, and 21. Furthermore, many of those previously listed record requests involved questions of fact concerning how many records existed, and how many records were destroyed by MetroHealthSystem management employees. Thus, most of the aforementioned record requests were not subject to a motion for summary judgment on question of fact grounds. The Court of Appeals erred in not so concluding on that legal point as well. The Court of Appeals also erred in finding Clinton s record request no 1 was untimely. The three year record retention rule continuously cited by MetroHealthSystem in Clinton s first appeal to the Court of Appeals in 2005, as well as the same lie told by appellees in

3 Clinton s second appeal to the Court of Appeals, [the case at bar] was false and misleading to the both the trial courts and both courts of appeal, and therefor constituted fraud upon all of the courts who heard the matter. [Appellees took portions of the 1994 incinerator permit and combined them with portions of the 1999 incinerator permit to argue their 3 year rule when in fact it was a five year rule that applied in part]. The Court of Appeals below has also misapplied the applicable law as did the first court of appeals. Metro did not have a valid record retention policy under Ohio law so by law had to retain the requested records Clinton sought indefinitely [the no year rule as we term it]. The Court of Appeals also erred in finding Clinton s claim for forfeiture fees to be untimely. The court of appeals erroneously held the statute ran in March of 2008 for the records Clinton requested in March of This is clearly a misapplication of the statute law as there is no time limit for filing a mandamus action for not receiving records. Furthermore, the forfeiture statute only applies in the event we have evidence that Metro destroyed records. We did not have such evidence until the deposition of Ron Wallace taken in April of 2012 as a result of our mandamus action filed in 2010 and John Carroll s plea agreement of August of 2009 wherein he admitted to destroying records relating to his kick back scheme with the contractors making repairs at Metro. Therefore Clinton s forfeiture claims were timely filed within one year of gaining knowledge of such wrongdoing contrary to the Court of Appeals opinion and findings according to the rule stated in State ex rel. Hunter vs City of Alliance, 2002 Ohio So contrary to the Court of Appeals erroneous conclusion, Clinton could not have filed her mandamus action before August of 2009 as there existed NO concrete evidence of intentional record destruction on Metro s affirmative actions until that date!!!! The court of appeals erred in finding request no 14 regarding the EPA logs to be vague

4 and untimely. Furthermore, the Court of Appeals in the first Clinton Mandamus action did not address the Rammelkamp record request made in It also misapplied the record retention rule and mistakenly accepted MetroHealthSytems triple lies regarding its alleged 3 year record retention rule as applied to the EPA morgue incinerator logs we sought. Metro s triple lie and fraud in the first Clinton Court of Appeals case which continued to this day in our second Clinton Court of Appeals action now before this honorable court can be summarized as follows: a) Metro had a valid public records retention policy - FALSE in 2006 and in 2010 and 2014; b) the 3 year record retention policy applied to the Title V permit morgue incinerator records; FALSE then and now ; c) that only the EPA rule governed Metro s record retention policy; when in fact Ohio statute law that governed Metros record retention policy; d) the lie Metro gave in Clinton I and continued in Clinton II that the records had been rd inadvertently thrown out by accident by a 3 party cleaning company about 2001 when in fact we now know as of April of 2012 that Metro intentionally discarded the morgue incinerator records and other records regarding the repairs made at the hospital on the orders of John Carroll and John Appeldorn as supervised by Ron Wallace. This was done to discard any records pertaining to the kickback scheme of Carroll, Greco, and Patil for skimming repair orders for maintenance and repairs at the hospital regarding the morgue incinerator and poor air quality due to helicopter fumes, lab fumes, and poor air quality in general which led to the death of Mr. Padney who worked in the incinerator area of th Metro back in the 1990's [ Padney Admin. et al v MetroHealth Medical Center Ct of App 8 Dist. NO and Padney vs MetroHealth Center Sup Ct ]. Rao lied about the air quality in the Padney civil action just like he lied about the 3 year record retention policy for morgue incinerator records in our first mandamus action which we call Clinton I which metro

5 falsely re alleged to the trial court and the court of appeals in our second mandamas action which we call Clinton II. The court of appeals misapplied the Grava v Parkman Twp, 73 Ohio St 3d 379 (1995) case to record request no 14 and others. This is because the Ohio Supreme Court stated the exception in Grava existed in cases of fraud, which is clearly present in both Clinton I and Clinton II due to the Cuyahoga County corruption schemes and the records coverup and destruction perpetuated by John Carroll and Tom Greco and Nilash Patil on the morgue incinerator repair and maintenance contracts and the air handlers and air changers cleaners contracts. These are part of the records Clinton sought first in and again in 2007 and Ct of appeals erred in finding Clinton did not show clear and convincing evidence that the records she sought existed and were reasonably defined for Metro to produce as the pertained to record requests nos 1, 10,11,14,18,23,and 24. This is a question of fact and cannot be adjudicated by a motion for summary judgment. This honorable court declined to accept jurisdiction of this matter as it said it did not present an important public policy question for review. However, when so many people at MetroHealth are sick due to exposure to various environmental work related contaminants including the Appellant, Karen Clinton s ongoing work related illness, [please read the 2005 letter signed by 100 Metro employees in the NICU demanding management do something about helicopter fumes in the NICU unit attached to Realtor s original mandamus complaint in this appeal ] we cannot understand why this fact alone does not meet the Court s requirement for an important public policy question for this Court s review? Appellant had sought the various records she has requested over the past decade in order to discovery what caused her illness in

6 order to attempt to find a cure. In the process she also discovered the corruption. Thus, we do not understand why the Court believes that our fact pattern does not constitute a valid important public policy reason for jurisdictional review purposes? We attempt to clarify our position with this motion. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons discussed above, we strongly believe that Mrs. Clinton s appeal involves matters of great public interest involving the health of Metro employees, including Mrs. Clinton, who remains permanently and totally disabled due to exposure to some kind of toxic substance during her job duties at Metro in She respectfully requests this honorable Court to reconsider its declining to accept jurisdiction of this appeal Order, and instead accept jurisdiction in her case, so that the various issues summarized above can be fully briefed and reviewed on their respective merits. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Terry Jennrich Terry Jennrich ( ) Euclid Ave Cleveland, Ohio ext tjennrich@nrsinjurylaw.com

7 CERTIFICATE of SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion for Reconsideration of Jurisdiction was served on Barbara Marburger via on this first day of June 2015 and by regular U.S. mail at: Barbara Marburger ( ) Asst. Pros. Atty th The Justice Center, Courts Tower 8 Floor Cleveland, Ohio bmarburger@prosecutor.cuyahogacounty.us Attorney for Appellee MetroHealthSystem /s/ Terry Jennrich Terry Jennrich Attorney for Appellant