La Riccia v. Ohio Civil Rights Comm'n

219 N.E.3d 374

Mary LA RICCIA, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.OHIO CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 111976

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County.

Released and Journalized: June 1, 2023

Mary La Riccia, pro se.

David Yost, Ohio Attorney General, Adrian C. Feiertag, Assistant Attorney General, and David A. Oppenheimer, Principal Assistant Attorney General, for appellee Ohio Civil Rights Commission.

Littler Mendelson P.C., Timothy S. Anderson, Cleveland, and Jennifer B. Orr, for appellee Cleveland Clinic Foundation.

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

MICHAEL JOHN RYAN, J.:

{¶ 1} Pro se plaintiff-appellant, Mary La Riccia¹ ("La Riccia") appeals the trial court's judgment affirming the decision of defendant-appellee Ohio Civil Rights Commission's ("OCRC" or "commission") finding of no probable cause that defendant-appellee Cleveland Clinic Foundation ("CCF") committed a violation of Ohio's civil rights laws. La Riccia claimed that CCF discriminated against her and failed to grant her a reasonable accommodation by terminating her physician-patient relationship with CCF employee Dr. Neil Cherian. After a thorough review of the facts and the law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Substantive and Procedural History

{¶ 2} La Riccia began seeing Dr. Cherian, a CCF neurologist, in April 2020, for treatment of her neurological disorder, Mai de Debarquement Syndrome, which causes dizziness and balance disturbances. The record reflects that Dr. Cherian treated La Riccia on four occasions consisting of one virtual visit and three in-office visits between April 23 and August 26, 2020. Between July and October 2020, La Riccia sent approximately 140 messages to Dr. Cherian through CCF's online MyChart system, which is a secure, online health management application that allows patients to review their medical records, test results, prescriptions, and appointment history and exchange messages with their health care providers.

{¶ 3} During La Riccia's course of treatment, Dr. Cherian realized that he could not effectively treat La Riccia's symptoms and recommended she establish care with a primary care provider, a psychologist, and a physical therapist. La Riccia refused to see other providers unless Dr. Cherian physically accompanied her to the appointments. La Riccia insisted that Dr. Cherian was the only provider that could treat her.

{¶ 4} In October 2020, a nurse notified Dr. Emad Estemalik, CCF's Section Head for Headache and Facial Pain at the Center for Neurological Restoration, about the MyChart messages. Dr. Estemalik reviewed the messages and concluded that they were "inappropriate, concerning, and crossed the professional boundary between physician and patient."

{¶ 5} On October 12, 2020, CCF terminated La Riccia's treating relationship with Dr. Cherian. Dr. Estemalik instructed La Riccia to immediately discontinue her contact with Dr. Cherian and advised her that he would assist with the transition of her care to another CCF provider. La Riccia was not deterred and continued to contact Dr. Cherian after obtaining his personal cell phone number. She also mailed at least one letter to his house.

{¶ 6} On March 19, 2021, La Riccia, proceeding pro se, filed a charge of discrimination against CCF with the OCRC alleging that CCF engaged in unlawful discriminatory practices. Specifically, La Riccia alleged that CCF discriminated against her based on her mental disability. La Riccia wanted Dr. Cherian restored as her treating physician.

{¶ 7} The commission conducted an eight-month investigation into La Riccia's claims. On November 18, 2021, the commission issued a Letter of Determination finding that there was no probable cause to believe CCF had committed an unlawful discriminatory practice under Ohio's civil rights laws. The commission stated that it "considered relevant documents and testimony" to make its findings of fact. The commission found that CCF did not deny La Riccia access due to her disability but that "CCF terminated the physician/patient relationship between La Riccia and Dr. Cherian due to La Riccia's inappropriate behavior." The commission noted that CCF submitted evidence showing it had discontinued treatment for other patients in the past based on inappropriate behavior and that CCF tried to assist La Riccia with finding another provider. The commission concluded that "CCF has no duty under R.C. Chapter 4112 to accommodate an individual whose access to its services has been lawfully restricted" and dismissed the complaint.

{¶ 8} La Riccia filed for reconsideration. On reconsideration, the commission upheld its original finding of no probable cause. The commission noted that La Riccia's requested accommodation of continuing treatment with Dr. Cherian was unreasonable, given that Dr. Cherian himself believed he could no longer help La Riccia, and given the inappropriate messages La Riccia sent him. The OCRC reiterated that CCF had offered to assist La Riccia to find another provider and did not deny La Riccia services.

{¶ 9} In March 2022, La Riccia and her husband, Travis Horn, petitioned the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court pursuant to R.C. 4112.06 for judicial review of the OCRC's finding of no probable cause. In April 2022, La Riccia filed an amended complaint removing Horn as a petitioner and joining CCF as a defendant.

{¶ 10} La Riccia filed numerous motions including motions for injunctive relief and summary judgment, attaching numerous exhibits. The trial court denied these motions and issued an order explaining that it was limiting its review to the commission's record and the parties’ briefs on the merits and that it would not consider other motions or papers that were not properly before the court.

{¶ 11} On September 20, 2022, the trial court issued its judgment entry and opinion affirming the OCRC's finding of no probable cause and holding that the commission's decision was not "unlawful, irrational, arbitrary, or capricious." Specifically, the court found that the record demonstrated that the physician-patient relationship had "run its course" and was damaged beyond repair. The court noted that Dr. Cherian referred La Riccia to providers who could treat her when he determined that her symptoms were not within his area of expertise. The trial court reasoned that the clinical relationship was no longer viable considering the nature of La Riccia's communications with Dr. Cherian. The court emphasized that La Riccia never submitted any evidence that verified that her inappropriate conduct was the result of a disability and found that CCF did not deny La Riccia care; "they merely attempted to transition her to other providers who could provide more suitable treatment."

Federal Case

{¶ 12} La Riccia pursued other avenues of relief in addition to filing a complaint with the OCRC and a petition with the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court. La Riccia, and her spouse, Horn, filed suit against CCF and several of its employees ("CCF defendants") in federal court alleging discrimination and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), among other claims. The district court dismissed their complaint pursuant to Civ.R. 16(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. LaRiccia v. Cleveland Clinic Found. , N.D.Ohio No. 1:21 CV 1291, 2021 WL 4819878 (Oct. 15, 2021).

{¶ 13} La Riccia and Horn appealed. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment. La Riccia v. Cleveland Clinic Found. , 6th Cir. No. 21-3990, 2022 WL 18207187, 3 (Aug. 24, 2022). In so doing, the court determined that the district court did not err in dismissing La Riccia and Horn's complaint because each of their federal claims required that the CCF defendants discriminated against La Riccia on account of her disability. Id. at 2. The court found that La Riccia and Horn's own allegations showed that the CCF defendants ended La Riccia's treatment relationship with Dr. Cherian because of inappropriate MyChart messages. "That is neither discrimination on the basis of disability nor retaliation for requesting an accommodation." Id. The court noted that even if La Riccia's messages stemmed from a mental disability, "it does not follow that the defendants took their actions because of her disability." Id. at 2. "As the district court correctly put it, the defendants’ actions regarding La Riccia's ‘care would have been handled the same way if she had no illness and was exchanging personal, nonmedical messages with any physician through MyChart.’ "

Id. , quoting LaRiccia , N.D.Ohio No. 1:21 CV 1291, 2021 WL 4819878, at id.

Assignments of Error

I. The trial court erred by allowing the Commission to exploit the provisions set forth in O.R.C. 4112.05 to submit an incomplete and clearly biased record.

II. The trial court erred by allowing the Commission to exploit the provisions set forth in O.R.C. 4112.06(B) by failing to submit "all evidence and proffered evidence" received during their preliminary investigation to the court, without explanation and based solely on their exploitation of O.R.C. 4112.05.

III. The trial court erred by finding the Commission's determination was not unlawful, irrational, arbitrary and capricious based on evidence that is not included in the Commission's submitted record, and by disregarding all of my arguments and evidence, even what is present in the Commission's submitted record.

IV. The trial court erred by misinterpreting the text of O.R.C. 4112.02(G) and allowing the legislative intent behind the enactment of the statute to be defeated by overly restrictive interpretation in direct contradiction of the Ohio Supreme Court.

V. The trial court erred by misinterpreting the provisions set forth in Title III of the ADA and misapplied the law by applying Title I standards and restrictions to a Title III claim.

Law and Analysis

Failure to Follow Appellate Rules

{¶ 14} App.R. 12 and 16 provide this court with the authority to disregard any...