Ohio Casino Control Commission Meeting

John Izzo attended the Ohio Casino Control Commission Meeting on Wednesday, October 15, 2014.  Tracy Plouck, Director of the Ohio Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services provided a report to the Commission as well as the 2015 plan for problem gambling services.  There was discussion concerning the renewal of licenses that are coming to the Commission.  There have been over 1,800 thus far.  Internal controls were amended for all four casinos.  One case came before the commission, an individual who was not forthcoming about his past criminal convictions.  His application for a license was denied.  Tama Davis, the Director of Communications, is leaving to accept a position in the public sector.  The date of the next monthly meeting was not mentioned.

State Medical Board of Ohio Meeting - October 8, 2014

John Izzo attended the State Medical Board of Ohio meeting on October 8, 2014.  He was present for the Board’s consideration of several Reports and Recommendations.  Of note, the Board approved the license of a massage therapist who’s license lapsed three years ago but continued to practice.  Mr. Giacalone, Board Member, stated that the applicant mitigated her situation by ceasing practice upon learning she was not licensed and notifying the board.  It was agreed that she would receive a reprimand, but would be allowed a license.  In a separate massage therapist case, the Board decided to permanently deny an individual who had three DUI’s prior to her application, and one afterwards that she did not inform the Board of.  A key point in the Board’s determination appeared to be the applicant’s statement that she did not believe Alcoholics Anonymous would work for her, and that she continued to work as a bartender pending the outcome of her application.

The Equine Immunity Statute

The Ninth District Court of Appeals recently reviewed a case where it compared the Equine Immunity Statute (R.C. 2305.321) with the statutory cause of action for injuries sustained as a result of another person’s dog (R.C. 955.28).  In Graham v. Shamrock Stables (9^th Dist.), 2014-Ohio-3977, Graham was at Shamrock Stables looking at a horse to adopt.  A dog harbored on Shamrock Stables’ property allegedly barked and jumped at the horse’s back legs.  The horse in question became spooked, swung around and knocked Graham to the ground.  As a result of the fall, Graham seriously injured two of her fingers.

Graham argued that the Equine Immunity Statute did not apply because her injuries were the proximate result of the dog; therefore, the injuries are compensable under R.C. 955.28.  The Court disagreed.

To prove a statutory cause of action pursuant to R.C. 955.28, the plaintiff must prove ownership or keepership of the dog, that the dog’s actions were the proximate cause of the injury, and damages.  However, the Equine Immunity Statute provides immunity from liability for harm sustained by an equine activity participant allegedly from the inherent risk of equine activity. 

Graham was an equine activity participant.  The “inherent risks” include the unpredictability of an equine’s action to other animals.  Graham concede that immunity would exits if she were bringing suit against Shamrock Stables as a sponsor or an equine activity.  Graham stated there was no immunity because her suit arose from the injuries she received as a proximate result of the dog, not that the horse reacted to the dog. 

The Court looked at the plain language of the Equine Liability Statute.  Since the General Assembly did not exempt an equine’s reaction to dogs, the horse’s reaction to the dog would qualify as an inherent risk of equine activity.  Therefore, Shamrock Stables was entitled to immunity.

Judge Carr dissented, stating that the general immunity provision in the Equine Immunity Statute must yield to the exception created by the special provision in R.C. 955.28 for injuries occasioned by dogs.  

John Izzo, Esq.

Ohio Veterinary Medical Licensing Board Update

John Izzo attended the Veterinary Medical Licensing Board meeting on October 8, 2014.  The Board is still one veterinarian short.  There was some discussion about what to do with veterinary clinics that do not provide two weeks notice of their hours.  It was decided to remind the clinic the first time they are late.  It appears there will be a penalty if the paperwork is received late a second time.  It was determined that the Ohio Department of Health and local health departments must comply with the Veterinary Medical Practice Act and the rules promulgated thereunder.  Several complaints were reviewed by the Board.  It appears that at least two Notices of Opportunity for Hearing will be issued.  The next Board meeting is November 12, 2014.