FRED J. SHOEMAKER, Judge.
On November 30, 1988, this matter came to trial before a referee of this court. On January 13, 1989, the referee issued a report wherein he found that the plaintiff's claim was meritorious and that he is entitled to recover damages in the amount of $6,000.
Civ.R. 53 states that "[a] party may, within fourteen days of the filing of the report, serve and file written objections to the referee's report." Defendant did not file an objection to said report.
Upon review of the record and the referee's report, it is the court's finding that the referee was correct in his analysis of the issues and application of the law. Accordingly, this court adopts the referee's report and recommendation as its own. See Appendix.
Therefore, the court enters judgment in favor of the plaintiff; it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that plaintiff shall take $6,000 upon his claim against the defendant, the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. Costs assessed against the defendant.
Judgment for plaintiff.
FRED J. SHOEMAKER, J., retired, of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, sitting by assignment.
APPENDIX Referee's Report Issued January 13, 1989
ROBERT D. KREITER, Referee.
The above-captioned matter came on for trial on November 30, 1988, with counsel for both parties present. The defendant stipulated to liability and, thus, the focus of this report pertains to damages. The evidence has been thoroughly reviewed and evaluated; the briefs submitted by counsel, subsequent to trial, have also been fully considered. Upon review, the referee renders the following report and recommendation.
Plaintiff, Michael D. Rutledge, an inmate, filed a complaint in this court alleging he had been permanently injured on October 6, 1982, as a result of negligence on the part of defendant, the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. Specifically, plaintiff has asserted he sustained head, neck, and shoulder injuries when a metal shower assembly, in a shower room located in the recently closed Ohio Penitentiary, fell upon him and approximately twenty-four other inmates. The fallen shower assembly, consisting of metal pipe approximately four to five inches in diameter with a length of approximately twenty feet, became loose when a prison crew cut the assembly's fastening bolts sometime in September 1982. At the time of the incident, plaintiff and the other inmates were taking a shower while under the supervision of a correctional officer.
On the date of the accident, plaintiff reported to James Hospital, the prison infirmary, complaining he experienced an injury due to said incident. Medical records noted plaintiff exhibited neck strain, with accompanying pain, tenderness, and a limitation of neck movement. In a subsequent medical report dated October 11, 1982, the examining physician noted his impression of plaintiff's injury to be a contusion. Plaintiff remained a patient at James Hospital from October 11, 1982 to March 11, 1983, and underwent extensive tests and procedures to determine the physical cause of his complaints, which included chronic headaches, neck, shoulder, and arm pain. A post-examination report from Dr. Joseph H. Goodman, dated July 18, 1984, noted plaintiff "has had a full workup in the past including E.E.G.'s, E.C.G.'s, and CT scan which were negative except for cervical osteoarthritis and the question of right cervical radiculopathy." However, plaintiff testified at trial that he continues to experience head, neck, and shoulder pain.
Plaintiff's complaints appear to be consistent with the findings of his medical expert, Dr. Jaime Smithe Incas. Dr. Smithe Incas, a neurologist, having examined plaintiff, testified that the plaintiff is suffering from post-traumatic syndrome relating to the muscles of the neck and shoulders, which is a permanent disabling condition. The doctor indicated that plaintiff's condition will manifest itself in the form of "toothache like pain" during exposure to cold and damp weather. Dr. Smithe Incas testified plaintiff's permanent condition is causally related to the initial injury occurring on October 6, 1982.
Conversely, defendant's medical witness, Dr. Norbert Nissomov, testified he has observed nothing to indicate plaintiff is suffering from post-traumatic syndrome; Dr. Nissomov, however, admitted he has never conducted an examination of plaintiff in respect to this particular condition. Dr. Nissomov has examined and treated plaintiff approximately ten times for conditions running from general pain complaints to hemorrhoids. It was revealed that the plaintiff never mentioned his October 6, 1982 injury to Dr. Nissomov. However, Dr. Nissomov testified he had no reason to disbelieve the plaintiff or another medical opinion in respect to plaintiff's condition.
In addition, defendant presented evidence to show plaintiff has a history of being manipulative and a chronic complainer in regards to his medical condition. This is evidenced by, among other things, a one hundred thirty-one day hospital stay for the injury in question, which should have resolved itself within a ten- to twelve-day period. Although the evidence offered does have a bearing on plaintiff's credibility, it does not controvert the finding that plaintiff has a permanent injury involving his neck and shoulder area, nor does it dispute the fact plaintiff displayed physical signs of receiving a traumatic injury on October 6, 1982.
Therefore, based on the evidence presented at trial and in view of the above, the referee finds that defendant's negligence, to wit: the loose shower assembly, was the proximate cause of plaintiff's initial injury and current condition. Furthermore, the referee finds that plaintiff has physically suffered and will experience future pain and suffering, as well as future medical expenses as a result of defendant's negligence.
In view of the above, the referee finds that plaintiff is entitled to recover damages in the amount of $6,000 and recommends to this court, pursuant to Civ.R. 53, that judgment be rendered for said amount.
To succinctly review this matter, the referee renders the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Findings of Fact
1. On October 6, 1982, plaintiff was injured in the neck and shoulder area as a result of being struck by a defective shower assembly under the control of defendant.
2. Plaintiff offered no eyewitness account, other than his own testimony, to show he had been struck by the falling shower assembly.
3. On said date, plaintiff reported to defendant's medical personnel he had been injured on the head, neck, and shoulder area from the falling shower assembly.
4. Defendant's examining medical personnel noted on October 7 and October 11, 1982, plaintiff had a neck contusion and neck strain, a traumatic injury consistent with being struck.
5. Defendant has stipulated liability for the defective falling shower assembly.
6. Plaintiff received medical care for his complaints of head, neck, and shoulder pain.
7. Plaintiff has undergone neurological tests and examinations which were negative except for cervical osteoarthritis.
8. Plaintiff's expert medical witness, Dr. Smithe Incas, a neurologist, testified plaintiff has a permanent neuromuscular rheumatoid condition in his neck, which would manifest itself in cold weather and require analgesic or perhaps cortisone treatment.
9. Plaintiff's expert medical witness testified plaintiff would incur approximately two hundred dollars a year in expenses to treat his permanent medical problem.
10. Although plaintiff's complaint of headaches is subjective, headaches are not inconsistent with plaintiff's medical problems resulting from his injury.
11. Plaintiff has displayed manipulative behavior with respect to medical problems.
12. Defendant's medical witness, Dr. Nissomov, did not believe the plaintiff had sustained a permanent injury from the October 6, 1982 incident, although he admitted he had never conducted a neurological examination upon the plaintiff.
13. Plaintiff will be forty-one years old when he will go before the Parole Board for possible release from incarceration.
14. Plaintiff can reasonably be expected to have a work life expectancy of twenty-four years if released from incarceration in 1991.
Conclusions of Law
1. Plaintiff has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that he was injured as a result of defendant's negligence.
2. Except as to questions of cause and effect which are so apparent as to be matters of common knowledge, the issue of causal connection between an injury and a specific subsequent physical disability involves a scientific inquiry and must be established by the opinion of medical witnesses competent to express such opinion. Drakulich v. Indus. Comm. (1940), 137 Ohio St. 82, 17 O.O. 398, 27 N.E.2d 932; cf. Bowling v. Indus. Comm. (1945), 145 Ohio St. 23, 30 O.O. 245, 60 N.E.2d 479; Stacey v. Carnegie-Illinois Steel Corp. (1951), 156 Ohio St. 205, 46 O.O. 93, 101 N.E.2d 897; Lacy v. Uganda Investment Corp. (1964), 7 Ohio App.2d 237, 29 O.O.2d 177, 195 N.E.2d 586. See, also, De Tunno v. Shull (1957), 166 Ohio St. 365, 2 O.O.2d 281, 143 N.E.2d 301; Day v. Gulley (1963), 175 Ohio St. 83, 23 O.O.2d 382, 191 N.E.2d 732; Darnell v. Eastman (1970), 23 Ohio St.2d 13, 52 O.O.2d 76, 261 N.E.2d 114. The referee is of the opinion that plaintiff's aforementioned medical expert's testimony demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that plaintiff's post-traumatic neuromuscular condition is related to the pertinent injury. As a consequence of said causal connection, the plaintiff has suffered damages for which defendant is liable.