Estate of G.B. v. Hamilton Cty. Job & Family Servs.

[Cite as Estate of G.B. v. Hamilton Cty. Job & Family Servs., 2026-Ohio-4188.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO ESTATE OF G.B., by and through : APPEAL NO. C-250376 Administrator Blake Maislin, TRIAL NO. A-1701739 : Plaintiff-Appellant, : and JUDGMENT ENTRY : MATERNAL GRANDMOTHER, : Plaintiff, : vs. : HAMILTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF JOB AND FAMILY SERVICES, et al., : Defendants, : and : SHAMARA STEPHENS, : KASSI SETTY, : and : LUMADI LAVUSA, : Defendants-Appellees. : This cause was heard upon the appeal, the record, the briefs, and arguments. For the reasons set forth in the Opinion filed this date, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause is remanded. Further, the court holds that there were reasonable grounds for this appeal, allows no penalty, and orders that costs be taxed under App.R. 24.  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS The court further orders that (1) a copy of this Judgment with a copy of the Opinion attached constitutes the mandate, and (2) the mandate be sent to the trial court for execution under App.R. 27. To the clerk: Enter upon the journal of the court on 10/23/2026. Pursuant to App.R. 30, the clerk is directed to serve upon all parties, or their counsel if represented, a copy of the court’s judgment and note such action on the docket. By:_______________________ Administrative Judge [Cite as Estate of G.B. v. Hamilton Cty. Job & Family Servs., 2026-Ohio-4188.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO ESTATE OF G.B., by and through : APPEAL NO. C-250376 Administrator Blake Maislin, TRIAL NO. A-1701739 : Plaintiff-Appellant, : OPINION and : MATERNAL GRANDMOTHER, : Plaintiff, : vs. : HAMILTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF JOB AND FAMILY SERVICES, et al., : Defendants, : and : SHAMARA STEPHENS, : KASSI SETTY, : and : LUMADI LAVUSA, : Defendants-Appellees. : Civil Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas Judgment Appealed From Is: Reversed and Cause Remanded Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: October 23, 2026  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS FG+G, Jacqueline Greene and Alphonse A. Gerhardstein, for Plaintiff-Appellant, Laufman Napolitano, LLC, and Paul M. Laufman, and Michael L. Tranter, for Defendant-Appellee Shamara Stephens, Stephen J. Wenke, for Defendant-Appellee Kassi Setty, Connie Pillich, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, Pamela J. Sears and Bennet S. Weaver, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, for Defendant-Appellee Lumadi Lavusa.  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS BOCK, Judge. {¶1} This appeal involves the tragic death of two-year-old G.B., who was murdered by her parents, Andrea Bradley and Glen Bates.1 Plaintiff maternal grandmother, in her individual capacity and as the then-administrator2 of the estate of G.B. (“the Estate”), brought wrongful-death and survivorship claims against defendants-appellees Lumadi Lavusa, Shamara Stephens, and Kassie Setty (collectively, “the caseworkers”), who were employed as caseworkers by the Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services (“JFS”).3 The trial court granted the caseworkers’ motions for summary judgment because it determined that they were immune from liability. The Estate appealed. {¶2} We hold that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding whether the caseworkers’ acts or omissions constitute a conscious indifference to, or disregard of, a known or obvious risk of harm to G.B. that was unreasonable under the circumstances—conduct which, if proven, could constitute recklessness under R.C. 2744.03(A)(6)(b) and defeat immunity. We sustain the Estate’s assignments of error, reverse the trial court’s judgment, and remand the cause to the trial court. 1 The coroner identified two causes that equally contributed to G.B.’s death: starvation and blunt- force trauma. Because the evidence involving G.B.’s prolonged malnutrition and starvation is sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the caseworkers acted recklessly for purposes of R.C. 2744.03(A)(6)(b), we confine our analysis to that aspect of the record. Accordingly, we do not address whether the caseworkers’ actions or omissions with respect to investigating Bates, including whether he was residing in the home with Bradley and G.B., whether he had a propensity for violence, or whether he was a suitable caregiver, independently create a genuine issue of material fact regarding recklessness. 2 On June 15, 2018, Blake Maislin replaced maternal grandmother as the administrator of the Estate of G.B., a deceased minor, by order of the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas, Probate Division. Thus, the plaintiff-appellant in this appeal is the Estate of G.B., by and through administrator Blake Maislin. 3 Maternal grandmother sued other defendants, but this appeal involves only the three caseworkers. 5  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS I. Factual and Procedural History A. Caseworkers’ deficient briefs {¶3} As a preliminary matter, Stephens’s and Setty’s appellate briefs are deficient. The briefs do not comply with App.R. 16 because, rather than providing their own statements of fact, they simply direct this court to the statements of fact contained in their summary‑judgment motions. But the Rules of Appellate Procedure do not permit parties to incorporate arguments or factual recitations by reference to filings in the trial court. See Erie Cty. Dept. of Jobs & Family Servs. v. Ray, 2025‑Ohio‑2327, ¶ 19 (6th Dist.) (collecting cases). App.R. 16 requires parties’ briefs to set forth a statement of facts with citations to the record. And although App.R. 16(B) allows an appellee to omit a statement of facts if satisfied with the appellant’s version, appellees wishing to rely on a different factual account must provide their own statements with proper record citations. {¶4} Because Stephens’s and Setty’s briefs contain no independent statement of facts, we were required to sift through the summary-judgment record to determine the facts upon which they relied to support their arguments that they were immune from liability. Identifying the portions of the record that support a party’s position is the party’s responsibility, not the court’s. These deficiencies improperly shifted to the court the burden of locating and assembling the evidence necessary to evaluate the parties’ arguments and hindered the efficient resolution of this appeal. {¶5} Setty’s summary‑judgment motion further impedes our review because it contains no citations to evidence in the record, making it impossible to locate supporting material by reference to that motion. Again, courts are not required to search the record to find evidence supporting a party’s position. 6  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS B. Procedural history {¶6} The Estate sued various entities and individuals, including the caseworkers, asserting claims for wrongful death and survivorship. {¶7} The trial court granted judgment on the pleadings to all defendants. This court affirmed that judgment. Maternal Grandmother v. Hamilton Cty. Dept. of Job & Family Servs., 2020-Ohio-1580 (1st Dist.) (“Maternal Grandmother I”). The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the judgment in favor of the caseworkers and remanded the cause to the trial court. Maternal Grandmother, Admr. v. Hamilton Cty. Dept. of Job & Family Servs., 2021-Ohio-4096 (“Maternal Grandmother II”). {¶8} On remand, the caseworkers moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted their motions and entered judgment in their favor, finding that the caseworkers were entitled to statutory immunity because the Estate’s evidence failed to establish that the caseworkers’ acts or omissions were reckless. {¶9} The Estate appealed. C. Facts 1. The juvenile court placed G.B. in JFS’s custody immediately after her birth {¶10} In January 2013, G.B. was born to her parents, Bradley and Bates. G.B. was born full term and weighed eight pounds, eight ounces, placing her in the 84th percentile for weight. {¶11} Before G.B.’s birth, JFS had obtained temporary custody of Bradley’s four other children based on allegations that Bradley had left her children in the care of her five-year-old child, who sustained “multiple marks and bruises as a result of physical discipline at the hands” of Bradley. Bradley signed a voluntary agreement stating that she was unwilling to care for G.B. JFS placed G.B. with her siblings in 7  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS foster care. 2. Lumadi Lavusa a. August 26, 2013 to December 31, 2013 {¶12} In late August 2013, JFS assigned G.B.’s case to ongoing caseworker Lavusa. That same day, JFS moved for the juvenile court to terminate JFS’s temporary custody and return the children to Bradley. JFS’s motion indicated that Bradley had completed substance-abuse treatment and parenting classes, tested negative on random drug screens, and was treating her mental-health issues with medication and therapy. The children’s GAL supported terminating temporary custody, but he noted in his report that “[a] few issues do present.” One of these issues was that the children were receiving only “one meal per day during visits” with Bradley. {¶13} Two days later, Lavusa and Bradley visited the children at the foster parents’ home. During the visit, the foster mother told Lavusa she was concerned about the children returning to Bradley’s custody. She explained that she often gave Bradley food for the children when Bradley had unsupervised weekend visits with the children because Bradley lacked food in her home. Lavusa told the foster mother that Bradley would receive a food voucher. {¶14} The juvenile court granted JFS’s motion and the children returned to Bradley’s custody on September 9, 2013. A protective-supervision order required Bradley to provide JFS reasonable access to her home, maintain sobriety, cooperate with mental-health services, and complete intensive-family-restoration services (“IFRS”). When she returned to Bradley’s custody, G.B. weighed 18 pounds and four ounces, placing her in the 82nd percentile for weight for an eight-month-old girl. {¶15} Four days later, after one of G.B.’s siblings alleged that Bradley was locking the children in a closet as punishment, Lavusa made an unannounced visit to 8  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS Bradley’s home. (Later, this allegation was deemed unsubstantiated.) While there, Lavusa inspected Bradley’s refrigerator, documenting that “there was enough food.” Bradley told Lavusa that maternal grandmother had provided Bradley with food and that she had reapplied for food assistance. Bradley told Lavusa that she had been unable to pay her rent for two months because she had stopped receiving benefits. {¶16} A few days later, Lavusa spoke with a prosecutor about a child- endangerment case that had been filed against Bradley due to the child’s allegation. The prosecutor advised Lavusa to visit weekly to ensure the children’s safety and to obtain supplemental food vouchers for Bradley. {¶17} A little more than one week after the children had returned to Bradley’s care, Lavusa made a planned visit to Bradley’s home. Bradley told Lavusa that her food assistance had not “kicked in yet” despite “them showing that they have been posted.” Lavusa said she would follow up with the food-assistance worker and directed Bradley to food pantries. Bradley assured Lavusa that G.B. “had plenty of food.” But Bradley was lying: Lavusa inspected Bradley’s refrigerator to find that there was no food inside it. Bradley signed a release of information for G.B. to participate in a program called “Help Me Grow.” Lavusa instructed Bradley to keep her updated about the status of Bradley’s food assistance. {¶18} Three days later, Lavusa returned for an unannounced home visit. Bradley’s food assistance had still not “rolled over on her card.” Lavusa documented that Bradley had enough food for the night “as evidence[d] by canned foods in the cabinet.” Bradley told Lavusa she was in the process of enrolling the children at Walnut Hills Medical Center for their health-care needs. Lavusa documented her intention to follow up with the medical center to confirm the children were enrolled. {¶19} During an October 2013 visit, Lavusa observed Bradley giving G.B. a 9  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS bottle. Bradley told Lavusa that she had a WIC4 appointment the next day and the children were scheduled for doctors’ appointments in November. At a visit later in October, Lavusa documented (1) she told Bradley that an IFRS worker had praised Bradley as very compliant, (2) Bradley represented that she was continuing to take her medication, “which really helps stabilize her,” (3) the children appeared “healthy and happy,” (4) G.B. “is fairing along well too,” and (5) Bradley told Lavusa that despite G.B. sometimes pushing the bottle away, “for the most part she is feeding well.” {¶20} At a November 2013 visit, Bradley told Lavusa that G.B. had begun to crawl and that Help Me Grow was visiting at the end of the month to evaluate G.B. and another child. {¶21} In December 2013, Lavusa learned that Bradley was seven months pregnant and had not disclosed this to JFS. Lavusa visited later that month, and Bradley confirmed that she was pregnant and Bates was the father. Further, Bradley told Lavusa that Help Me Grow planned to work with G.B. to help her develop motor and verbal skills. {¶22} After Bradley regained custody of her children, G.B. began losing weight. In September 2013, when G.B. was placed in Bradley’s custody, G.B. weighed 18 pounds, four ounces, which placed her in the 82nd percentile for weight for her age. But just months later, in December 2013, G.B. had lost a significant amount of weight. G.B. weighed 16 pounds and 12 ounces, placing her in only the fifth percentile for weight for her age. Lavusa was the family’s J.F.S. caseworker during that entire period. According to the coroner who conducted G.B.’s autopsy, it was during this time that G.B. began to experience starvation. 4 WIC is the United States Department of Agriculture’s “Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children.” 10  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS b. January 2014 through May 2014 {¶23} At an early January 2014 visit, Bradley told Lavusa that she continued to take her mental-health medication and had an upcoming therapy session. Further, Bradley said that the children were up to date on their doctors’ appointments and Help Me Grow was visiting twice a month to work with G.B. {¶24} At a February 2014 home visit, Lavusa observed no food in Bradley’s refrigerator other than a gallon of milk, which one of Bradley’s other children reported was for G.B. Bradley told Lavusa that she ran out of food assistance, so she and the children were eating at restaurants. Lavusa suggested that Bradley make use “of the free store” when her food assistance ran out. Bradley reported to Lavusa that a Help Me Grow worker told her that G.B. had “very low muscle tone” and was concerned that G.B. was more than a year old but could not walk. {¶25} Later that month, Bradley took G.B. to the emergency department at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center (“Children’s”). Bradley reported to medical personnel that G.B. had been “standing on a learning table and fell off backward,” hitting her head on a toy. A nurse noted a “large boggy spot” and a “boggy bruise” on G.B.’s forehead. Further, the nurse observed that G.B. “appears very small for her age and is very somnolent in exam room” and believed the doctors should rule out abuse. But a resident physician’s note described G.B. as appearing “well-developed and well-nourished.” At the hospital, G.B. weighed 16 pounds and 12 ounces, which placed her in the zero percentile for weight for her age. Children’s discharged G.B. without documenting any abuse inquiries or concerns. {¶26} The next day, Lavusa visited Bradley and documented that G.B. was “not looking well” and “appears to have lost some weight.” Bradley told Lavusa that G.B. “has been sick with a virus” and that she had taken G.B. to the emergency department. 11  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS Bradley told Lavusa that G.B. weighed “about 17 pounds,” was “eating well,” and G.B.’s doctor had told Bradley that G.B. was “in the right weight range for her age.” Bradley also claimed that G.B. had attended her one-year pediatrician appointment and was up to date on her vaccinations. (The coroner could find no record of a one-year medical appointment.) Lavusa’s notes said G.B. “presents as being small in stature and underweight” and Bradley “presents as not understanding the child’s development in relation to the child’s age.” Lavusa did not document G.B.’s forehead bruise or injury. {¶27} In her deposition, Lavusa could not recall following up with G.B.’s medical providers to confirm whether G.B. attended a one-year appointment or if G.B.’s doctors believed G.B.’s weight was on track. Lavusa agreed that had she contacted G.B.’s medical providers, she would have documented doing so. But G.B.’s JFS file contained no documentation that Lavusa attempted to contact the providers. {¶28} In mid-March 2014, maternal grandmother took G.B. to the emergency department at Children’s because G.B. was having difficulty breathing. Children’s staff noted that G.B. appeared “very quiet. Not interactive during exam,” but otherwise was “well-developed and well-nourished.” Children’s, however, noted that G.B. had low muscle tone and referred her to neurology. At this point, G.B. weighed 16 pounds, 7.7 ounces, which again placed her in the zero percentile for weight. Lavusa did not know about this hospital visit. {¶29} At a late-March 2014 visit, Lavusa documented that G.B. had “gained some weight as evidenced by [Lavusa] lift[ing] her in her arms.” {¶30} In April 2014, a Help Me Grow worker called Lavusa and reported that Bradley had missed G.B.’s February 2014 appointment without notification and had cancelled the next-scheduled appointment. The same day that she received the call, Lavusa visited Bradley and documented that G.B. was pulling herself up to stand on a 12  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS couch. Bradley claimed to have forgotten about the Help Me Grow appointments she missed. Bradley told Lavusa she would be restarting therapy in six weeks and had resumed taking her medications after her youngest child was born. Later in April, Bradley reported that G.B. had another Help Me Grow appointment and she was taking her medication. {¶31} In May 2014, Lavusa and her supervisor, Mary Ayoki, closed Bradley’s case. As a result, no one from JFS observed Bradley’s home, G.B., or the other children between May and December 2014. 3. Children’s admits G.B., prompting a neglect report {¶32} On December 4, 2014, Bradley took G.B. to Children’s, which admitted G.B. for an 11-day stay. The medical team diagnosed G.B. with failure to thrive. {¶33} Stacey Litman-Padnos, a social worker employed by Children’s, documented that Bradley had reported limiting G.B.’s food because she believed G.B. was overweight. Bradley also told Litman-Padnos that she was not taking her medication or attending therapy. G.B. weighed 17 pounds and 4.8 ounces, placing her in the zero percentile. {¶34} Litman-Padnos reported Bradley to 241-KIDS on December 9, 2014. She told the JFS intake worker that Bradley admitted to restricting G.B.’s food because she believed G.B. was overweight and that G.B. had not received “any medical care since she left foster care.” {¶35} Litman-Padnos contacted WIC, which informed her that at a July 2014 WIC appointment, WIC employees were concerned about G.B.’s weight and wanted G.B. to return in September. Bradley did not bring G.B. back to the WIC office. {¶36} Litman-Padnos explained that Children’s doctors had not found a medical explanation for G.B.’s failure to thrive, leading her to suspect that G.B.’s 13  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS condition was caused by “malnutrition and restriction of food.” Litman-Padnos believed Bradley had a “warped view on what the baby should look like” and “seemed shocked” when Litman-Padnos told her that a baby’s legs should have fat on them. 4. Shamara Stephens {¶37} JFS assigned Stephens to investigate Bradley’s neglect. JFS provided Stephens with an “Intake Narrative,” which included Litman-Padnos’s report and JFS’s history with Bradley, detailing past allegations. After being assigned the case, Stephens called her supervisor, Nancy White, to discuss failure to thrive. {¶38} On December 10, 2014, Stephens spoke with Litman-Padnos, who was “very concerned about [G.B.] as well as her size and development,” noting that G.B. was “significantly underweight” and unable to walk. Litman-Padnos told Stephens she suspected that Bradley was “intentionally mistreating [G.B.] and she is fearful of allowing the child to return to the home.” Stephens documented that Litman-Padnos had been unable to provide a “concrete” reason for her fear. But Litman-Padnos explained that there was no “medical reason for the failure to thrive so the only other conclusion is neglect.” And Litman-Padnos stressed to Stephens the importance of having a “good/safe discharge plan in place before [G.B.] can go home.” {¶39} With G.B. still in the hospital, Stephens visited Bradley at her home. Bradley told Stephens that she had believed G.B. was overweight and admitted “that maybe she was not giving the child the nutrients she needed but denies it was intentional.” Stephens’s visit notes suggest that Bradley confirmed she was not engaged in any mental-health services. Finally, her notes do not indicate that she spoke with any of Bradley’s other children during her visit and a JFS “Post-Death Summary” states that Stephens left “without any determination about the children’s safety nor any information to rule out the present danger threats identified in the 14  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS hotline. No action was taken.” {¶40} Before G.B.’s discharge, Stephens told Litman-Padnos that JFS lacked “enough information to prevent [Bradley] from taking her child home once she is ready for discharge.” Stephens asked Litman-Padnos if G.B. had gained any weight while in the hospital. Litman-Padnos explained that G.B. had gained one pound during her admission, which was “no where [sic] near what they were expecting.” According to the JFS Post-Death Summary, there was “no documentation to support the decision to allow [G.B.] to be discharged [to] her mother.” {¶41} Children’s discharged G.B. on December 15, 2014. JFS provided G.B.’s discharge summary to Stephens, which indicated that Bradley had been feeding nearly two-year-old G.B. “approximately 8 oz of Similac + 2-3 small bowls of cereal. No solids given due to choking on food.” {¶42} Stephens dropped by the house a week later to deliver Christmas gifts and could not remember if she saw any of the children but explained this was not a “home visit.” {¶43} Two weeks later, Stephens returned to Bradley’s home and documented that Bradley told her G.B. had gained three pounds since her hospital admission. G.B. was napping and was not in the room at the time. Later, however, Stephens observed Bradley dressing G.B. and was “shocked at her appearance. The child is significantly underweight and has very glossy eyes. She was not observed moving or making any sounds.” Bradley attributed G.B.’s “despondent behavior . . . to the fact that she had just been woke up from a nap” and told Stephens that G.B. had a WIC appointment the next week and would receive a prescription for PediaSure. Bradley also told Stephens that G.B. had been seen at a medical clinic after her discharge from Children’s and was scheduled to return to the clinic once she had begun drinking 15  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS PediaSure. Stephens spoke with Bradley’s other children, who reported that they were not denied food. {¶44} The next day, January 6, Stephens made referrals for Bradley for a diagnostic assessment and for “Intensive Family Intervention Services.” Stephens also initiated transferring Bradley’s case to an ongoing caseworker “to ensure that the medical health needs of [G.B.] are properly met and that [Bradley] re-engages in the appropriate mental health treatment.” {¶45} Two days later, Stephens completed a “Safety and Family Assessment” for Bradley’s case. She wrote that there “are no active safety threats at this time but there is a concern that [Bradley] is no longer under a mental health doctor’s care and it may have an effect on her parenting.” Stephens noted that she was “concern[ed]” that Bradley thought G.B. was overweight when she returned from foster care and questioned whether Bradley was “intentionally withholding food from the child.” Stephens determined that none of Bradley’s children could protect themselves and the “final level of risk for this family is high.” She also found the neglect allegation related to G.B. to be “indicated.”5 Although Stephens believed that G.B. had “not received any serious inflicted physical harm at this time,” she noted that G.B. was “significantly underweight for age [and] at this time there is no medical reason.” Despite concerns with G.B.’s weight, Stephens reported that Bradley had the ability to protect her children and she was “more than capable” of meeting the children’s basic needs. {¶46} Stephens also denied that Bradley was symptomatic for a mental illness 5 The record shows that a report is “indicated” if there is “circumstantial or other isolated indicators of child abuse or neglect lacking confirmation; or a determination by the caseworker that the child has been abused or neglected based upon completion of an assessment/investigation.” A report is “substantiated” if “there is an admission of child abuse or neglect by the person(s) responsible; an adjudication of child abuse or neglect; or other forms of confirmation deemed valid by” JFS, which includes a nonaccidental injury confirmed by a medical provider with expertise in diagnosing maltreatment or written reports/records from service providers. 16  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS that might place a child in immediate danger but documented that Bradley had stopped seeing a mental-health provider. Under a space asking whether a caretaker had “an unconvincing or insufficient explanation for the child’s serious injury or physical condition,” Stephens indicated, “No,” but then documented that Bradley restricted G.B.’s consumption of solid foods due to concerns about choking and G.B.’s hospital visit resulting in the failure-to-thrive diagnosis. Stephens’s supervisor, Nancy White, signed off on Stephens’s assessments. 5. Kassi Setty {¶47} On January 14, 2015, Stephens and Setty participated in a conference to transfer Bradley’s case to Setty, the assigned ongoing caseworker. Setty testified in her deposition that this meeting lasted five minutes, but she was aware that G.B. had been diagnosed with failure to thrive. Stephens gave Setty Bradley’s physical file during the meeting. That file included all prior “Activity Log Reports” (“ALRs”) about Bradley’s case.6 Setty could not recall if she had read Bradley’s file beyond “briefly” reviewing the last few ALRs. And during her deposition, Setty stated that she had been unaware that G.B. had been hospitalized. {¶48} Six days later, Stephens conducted an unannounced home visit. She did not document seeing any of the children but provided Bradley with a Kmart voucher and confirmed Bradley’s availability for a joint home visit with Setty the following day. {¶49} A week after Stephens transferred the case to Setty, the caseworkers visited Bradley’s home together. Setty did not document anything about the visit. {¶50} Setty’s next home visit was scheduled for four weeks later, on February 18, 2015. But Setty called Bradley to cancel that visit due to snow and rescheduled for 6 Activity Log Reports are notes createdby caseworkers that are stored within the Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System (“SACWIS”). 17  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS February 26. But Setty did not visit that day. Setty had pushed that visit to later in the day and could not find Bradley’s house because it was too dark outside. Setty and Bradley agreed to reschedule the appointment for the next week. {¶51} In early March, Setty attempted an unannounced home visit, but Bradley was not home. {¶52} Finally, on March 4, 2015, Setty succeeded in visiting Bradley. Setty referred Bradley, who had stopped taking mental-health medication, to mental-health services. Bradley told Setty that G.B.’s Help Me Grow services were “‘closed out’ stating that ‘everything was fine.’” Setty documented her intention to verify this information. Bradley told Setty she had taken G.B. to the WIC office, where personnel said G.B. was “‘doing great.’” Further, Bradley told Setty that G.B.’s pediatrician said G.B. “‘will catch up,’” and G.B.’s next pediatrician appointment was in May. Setty documented that G.B. appeared sleepy during the visit “and was falling in and out of sleep.” {¶53} Although Setty testified that she had attempted to verify Bradley’s representations about Help Me Grow and WIC, she conceded that if she had sent a request for information, she likely would have documented the request, which would be in the file. Setty did not attempt to contact G.B.’s doctor because she did not know who it was. Setty never reviewed any of G.B.’s medical records or contacted G.B.’s medical providers. She never asked anyone about G.B.’s weight, whether G.B. was being weighed, or how or when G.B. was fed. Moreover, Setty made “[v]ery little” attempts to observe G.B.’s weight during her visit, and she never asked about or attempted to observe any part of G.B.’s body. {¶54} Three weeks later, on March 26, 2015, Setty attempted to visit Bradley. Bradley was not home, so Setty left a visitation receipt on the door requesting Bradley to call to schedule a visit. 18  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 6. G.B.’s death and autopsy {¶55} On March 29, 2015, Bradley brought G.B. to the emergency department at Children’s. G.B. was dead when she arrived and was covered in numerous visible injuries, including a head injury. {¶56} Hamilton County Deputy Coroner Dr. Schott conducted an autopsy on G.B. the following day. She ruled G.B.’s death a homicide and attributed it to two equal causes: (1) battered-child syndrome with acute and chronic intracranial hemorrhages, and (2) starvation. Dr. Schott explained that “the effects of the starvation and the blunt impacts were both equally important in the cause of death.” She reported, “the blunt force injuries could have stood alone as a cause of death, and that the starvation could have stood alone as a cause of death, but they are both two components of child abuse.” {¶57} The autopsy showed that G.B., who was approximately 26 months old when she died, weighed only 13 pounds and 14.2 ounces and was 28 inches tall, placing her in the zero percentile for both height and weight for her age. Dr. Schott stated that G.B. “definitely” was experiencing starvation in December 2013. She explained that this starvation caused G.B.’s failure-to-thrive diagnosis. Dr. Schott’s autopsy report showed that G.B. had abdominal distension, thinned hair, generalized muscle wasting, loss of subcutaneous fat, puffy feet, loose skin, and general malnutrition, all of which were present during G.B.’s December 2014 hospital admission. 7. Investigation and conviction of Bradley and Bates {¶58} The State charged Bates and Bradley with G.B.’s murder. Bradley pleaded guilty to murder and is serving a 15-year-to-life sentence in prison. Bates was convicted of aggravated murder and sentenced to death, but his conviction was reversed by the Ohio Supreme Court. See State v. Bates, 2020-Ohio-634. Bates later pleaded guilty to amended charges. 19  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS {¶59} After G.B.’s death, JFS performed a safety assessment for Bradley’s other children. JFS learned that Bradley never took G.B. to any weekly weight checks after December 17, 2014. II. Analysis {¶60} On appeal, the Estate raises three assignments of error, which assert that the trial court erroneously granted summary judgment to Lavusa, Stephens, and Setty. Under each assignment of error, the Estate presents two issues for review: (1) whether the trial court improperly defined recklessness under R.C. 2744.03(A)(b)(6); and (2) whether genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment. {¶61} In entering summary judgment in favor of the caseworkers on the issue of immunity, the trial court concluded that the caseworkers’ conduct did not rise to the level of recklessness. The trial court determined that Lavusa and Stephens followed up with Bradley through visits, assisted her with resources, and “made attempts” to confirm her compliance with JFS directives. It is unclear from the record upon what facts the court relied to find that Lavusa and Stephens “made attempts” to confirm Bradley’s compliance, other than documenting Bradley’s representations that she was complying. {¶62} The trial court appeared to be more critical of Setty’s conduct. It observed, “[w]hether due to inexperience or lack of training, it appears Setty was unprepared for the role as a social worker” and that her notes “leave much to be desired and make it difficult to determine what actions she took.” Nevertheless, the court found no evidence that Setty observed abuse or neglect or possessed knowledge that her conduct would “in all probability result in injury.” {¶63} We first address and set forth the proper definition of “reckless” in the context of statutory immunity. Then we address whether the caseworkers were 20  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS entitled to summary judgment. A. De novo review {¶64} This court reviews a trial court’s decision granting summary judgment de novo. Branson v. Fifth Third Bank, N.A., 2025-Ohio-4396, ¶ 28 (1st Dist.). {¶65} Trial courts shall grant summary judgment if “(1) there are no genuine issues of material fact, (2) the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and (3) when viewing the evidence most strongly in the nonmovant’s favor, reasonable minds can come to one conclusion, and that conclusion is adverse to the nonmovant.” Id. at ¶ 29, citing Civ.R. 56(C). {¶66} The party seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden to explain the basis for summary judgment by pointing to admissible evidence in the record demonstrating that no genuine issue of material fact exists on the essential elements of the nonmoving party’s claims. Weckel v. Cole + Russell Architects, Inc., 2024-Ohio- 5111, ¶ 34 (1st Dist.), quoting Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280, 293 (1996). Once the movant meets this burden, the burden shifts to the nonmovant to “set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Civ.R. 56(E). {¶67} “‘Summary judgment is admittedly a drastic device’ because it ‘cuts off a party’s right to present [her] case to the jury.’” Johnson v. Munther, 2005-Ohio- 3641, ¶ 56 (5th Dist.), quoting Dupler v. Mansfield Journal Co., 64 Ohio St.2d 116, 120 (1980). Courts reviewing summary-judgment motions may not weigh the evidence; rather, they must view the facts and all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Smathers v. Glass, 2022-Ohio-4595, ¶ 32. “When factual ambiguities exist, inferences must . . . be resolved in favor of the nonmoving party.” Id. 21  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS B. Political subdivision immunity and the “recklessness” exception {¶68} Ohio law generally grants political subdivisions and their employees immunity from lawsuits and liability. Maternal Grandmother II, 2021-Ohio-4096, at ¶ 7, citing R.C. 2744.02(A)(1) and 2744.03(A)(6). “That immunity is not absolute, however.” Id. Employees may be liable for acts or omissions within the scope of their employment when their conduct is reckless. Id., citing R.C. 2744.03(A)(6)(b). Liability cannot be imposed for mere negligence. Anderson v. City of Massillon, 2012-Ohio-