A lawsuit against Hamilton County caseworkers filed by the grandmother of a child murdered by her parents contained enough information at the initial pleadings stage to move forward, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled today.

In a unanimous decision, the Court reversed the ruling of the First District Court of Appeals that affirmed a trial court's dismissal of Desena Bradley’s case. The First District ruled she had not alleged sufficient facts to show the caseworkers’ conduct was so deficient as to strip them of the immunity from civil lawsuits provided to Ohio government employees.

The justices were divided about why Bradley should be allowed to proceed with her lawsuit in Hamilton County Common Pleas Court.

Writing for the Court majority, Justice Patrick F. Fischer clarified that plaintiffs like Bradley may not be held to a “heightened pleading standard,” requiring them to provide more information in their initial allegations against a government employee than a typical civil-lawsuit plaintiff would have to submit. He wrote Bradley only needed to provide a “short and plain statement of the claim,” that is required by Ohio court rules, and she did.

Chie Justice Maureen O’Connor and Justices Michael P. Donnelly, Melody J. Stewart, and Jennifer Brunner joined Justice Fischer’s opinion.

In a concurring opinion, Justice R. Patrick DeWine stated the First District did not hold Bradley to a heightened standard, but he emphasized the Supreme Court needs to be more clear about what is expected of plaintiffs when submitting lawsuits. The complaint needs to contain factual content that is more than “mere speculation” to demonstrate they have a valid claim. He concluded Bradley did provide enough information.

Justice Sharon L. Kennedy joined Justice DeWine’s opinion.

County Blamed for Child’s Death
Glenara Bates died in March 2015 and her parents were convicted of her murder. Bradley, Glenara’s maternal grandmother, sued Hamilton County, the Hamilton County Board of Commissioners, the Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services, and the individual Job and Family Services caseworkers involved in Bates’ case. Under R.C. 2744.03 political subdivisions and their employees are generally immune from civil lawsuits. The county government and the caseworkers filed motions for judgment on the pleadings, arguing they were immune. The trial court agreed and dismissed Bradley’s case.

Bradley appealed to the First District, which unanimously affirmed that the county government was immune. However, the appellate court was split as to whether the claims against the caseworkers could move forward. The First District majority maintained Bradley’s complaint provided unsupported legal conclusions about the acts of the caseworkers, but not sufficient facts about their work to support her legal claims. The dissenting judge found Bradley’s claim contained sufficient facts to move forward with the case.

Bradley appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case.

Supreme Court Assesses Pleading Requirements
Justice Fischer explained that while the law generally provides government bodies and their employees immunity, it is not absolute. Under R.C. 2744.03(A)(6)(b) employees can be liable if their acts during the course and scope of their employment were wanton or reckless.

The Court has noted that wanton and reckless misconduct is not the same as negligence, but requires “something more than mere negligence,” the opinion stated. The Court wrote the issue was whether Bradley was required to prove “something more” than negligence in her initial pleading.

Ohio is a “notice-pleading” state, the Court stated, meaning outside of a few circumstances, such as claims involving fraud or mistake, a party is not expected to plead a claim with particularity. In cases where a complaint seeks to overcome a government employee’s immunity, the plaintiff cannot be held to a heightened standard or expected to explain in detail how the employee’s actions were wanton or reckless, the opinion stated.

Grandmother’s Complaint Analyzed
In her complaint, Bradley alleged the caseworkers ignored her daughter’s history of abusing her children, failed to properly investigate a report of abuse of her granddaughter from doctors and staff at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, and overlooked what should have been clear signs of abuse during a home visit less than a month before the child’s death.

Bradley’s complaint “essentially alleges that the caseworkers disregarded or were indifferent to a known or obvious risk” of harm to the child that was unreasonable under the circumstances, the Court stated. While Bradley’s complaint could have been more clearly written, “it did all that was required at the pleading stage by putting the caseworkers on notice” that their actions might meet the exception that strips their immunity, the opinion concluded.

The Court remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings, but cautioned that nothing in the decision should be read to suggest how the case should be decided on remand.

“In order to prevail, Bradley will still need to prove her claims and demonstrate that the caseworkers’ conduct really was wanton or reckless,” the opinion stated.

Concurrence Seeks to Clarify Pleading Standard
Justice DeWine wrote a separate concurrence to “offer a more complete discussion of Ohio’s pleading standard.” As he noted, Ohio has adopted a standard established in the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1957 Conley v. Gibson case, stating that to dismiss a case at the pleading stage it must appear “beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.”

That language, which has not been strictly applied by Ohio courts, has been “retired” by the U.S. Supreme Court, he wrote. Justice DeWine said the Ohio Supreme Court “should consign the phrase to a similar fate.”

The concurrence also stated that in an appropriate case Ohio should consider adopting the more rigorous pleading standard used by federal courts, which require that a plaintiff supply enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.

The concurrence noted that Bradley had to present factual allegations that support “at least an inference” that the caseworkers were reckless. While much of her complaint consisted of “bare legal conclusions,” which are insufficient to state a claim, Justice DeWine identified at least one aspect of her complaint that satisfied the pleading requirements.

When the child was taken to the hospital in December 2014, doctors detected significant signs of abuse and severe undernourishment, among a host of other problems. The doctors called the caseworkers to the hospital to meet with the parents. The complaint alleges that the caseworkers made a follow-up visit to the child’s home in early March 2015 and found everything was fine and the girl was healthy and happy.  Three weeks later the child was dead.

The coroner’s report identified more than 100 injuries, some of which were “months” old. If the child’s injuries were as pervasive and severe as alleged, then one can infer that the caseworkers could have detected the injuries during the home visit, the concurrence stated.

“And if the injuries would have been evident, the most reasonable inferences are either (1) that no home-visit was conducted or (2) that the home-visit was inadequate,” Justice DeWine wrote.

Bradley might be able to establish that the caseworkers were reckless in failing to adequately investigate the situation once the child was discharged from the hospital, the concurrence concluded, noting that it is ultimately up to the factfinder to assess the merits of her claim.

2020-0705. Maternal Grandmother v. Hamilton Cty. Dept. Job & Family Servs., Slip Opinion No. 2021-Ohio-4096.

View oral argument video of this case.

Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion, but only for noteworthy cases. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of court opinions. The full text of this and other court opinions are available online.