Webster v. Shaw - Ohio Third Dist. Court of Appeals 2016 Ohio App. LEXIS 1391
Apr 11, 2016
OUTCOME: Victory for my clients who were posioned by lead paint
An appeals court panel in Ohio reversed a trial court ruling dismissing my clients case in a childhood lead-paint poisoning lawsuit. The appeals court found that there was evidence of an issue of fact... for the jury to decide as to whether the landlords were on notice of the lead paint hazards at their premises. The case was remanded back to the trial court to be set for a jury trial.
Government
Cuyahoga Cnty. Bd. of Health v. Lipson O'Shea Legal Group, Ohio Supreme Court - 145 Ohio St. 3d 446
May 19, 2015
OUTCOME: Victory for my client, the Lipson O'Shea Legal Group
The Ohio Supreme Court ruled that a county board of health erred in declining to provide records to a law firm under the Ohio Public Records Act with respect to homes in the county where a minor child ...had certain elevated blood lead levels because its "blanket exemption" under R.C. 3701.17(A)(2) was inappropriate, in that many records requested contained non-excepted information, such that redaction of only protected health information was warranted with release of the remaining unprotected information.
Personal injury
Gilbert v. City of Cleveland, 8th Dist. Court of Appeals -2013-Ohio-5317
Dec 05, 2013
OUTCOME: Victory for my client, the Plaintiff
A Cleveland police officer, while on duty, caused a rear-end accident on the interstate causing the Plaintiff's death. The Appeals Court upheld the Trial Court's ruling, finding a fact issue as to wh...ether the officer involved the accident was pacing and therefore responding to an emergency call under R.C. 2744.01(A) at the time of the accident. This precluded summary judgment for the City based on its R.C. 2744.02(B)(1)(a) immunity where, although the officer claimed during his deposition to have been pacing at the time of the accident, the accident reports, including the officer's statement of what occurred, failed to mention pacing; There was also a fact issue as to whether the officer's conduct constituted willful or wanton misconduct under R.C. 2744.02(B)(1)(a) since the Plaintiff argued that the officer violated R.C. 4511.21(A) and 4511.041, pertaining to operating a motor vehicle at a speed that allowed for an assured clear distance ahead and an exception to that rule for a driver responding to an emergency call.
Child custody
In re S.R.L., 8th Dist. Court of Appeals - 2013-Ohio-3236
Jul 25, 2013
OUTCOME: Victory for my client, the child's father
The Appeals Court held that the trial court abused its discretion in finding that there had not been a change of circumstances sufficient to warrant a change in custody after the father presented evide...nce that the mother's frequent relocations were directly related to her alcohol abuse, the mother's claim that she had stopped drinking was contradicted by her own testimony, and the Guardian Ad Litem believed it in the child's best interest to remain in the father's custody to ensure stability in the child's life.
