The Ohio Court of Appeals has dismissed a petition filed by George Woznak, seeking to compel the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor’s Office to investigate and prosecute alleged criminal offenses related to his wife’s death. The court ruled on June 9, 2026, that Woznak's claims did not meet the necessary legal standards for a writ of mandamus.
This case arose after Woznak's wife, Diana Woznak, died in October 2019. Woznak filed an affidavit in support of a criminal complaint against C.W., a physician who treated Diana, claiming that the doctor committed involuntary manslaughter and reckless homicide by failing to provide adequate care. The court's decision affects Woznak directly, as he sought legal action against the prosecutor's office for what he perceived as a failure to investigate his claims.
Background
George Woznak, representing himself, filed an amended petition for a writ of mandamus against the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor’s Office, asserting that the office failed to properly investigate his allegations against C.W. He claimed that the physician's negligence led to his wife's death from a heart attack. Woznak's affidavit alleged that C.W. did not inform Diana of critical EKG results and discharged her without necessary medical care.
In June 2025, Woznak submitted his affidavit to the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court, invoking Ohio Revised Code sections R.C. 2935.09(D) and 2935.10(A). The court referred the matter to the prosecutor's office for further investigation. However, after reviewing the evidence and consulting with the Chief Medical Examiner, the prosecutor's office determined that no felony charges were warranted, prompting Woznak's petition.
The Ruling
The Ohio Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor’s Office, granting their motion to dismiss Woznak’s amended petition. The court found that Woznak did not demonstrate that the prosecutor had a clear legal duty to investigate his claims or that the office acted unreasonably in their decision-making process.
The court stated, "The decision whether to prosecute is discretionary, and not generally subject to judicial review."
Judge Emanuella D. Groves, along with Judges Lisa B. Forbes and Michael John Ryan, concurred in the decision. The court emphasized that prosecutors have broad discretion in determining whether to pursue criminal charges, and Woznak failed to provide sufficient evidence that the prosecutor's office abused this discretion.
Impact
This ruling underscores the significant discretion that prosecutors have in deciding whether to pursue criminal charges based on citizen-filed affidavits. The court's decision may discourage similar petitions in the future, as it highlights the challenges individuals face when attempting to compel a prosecutor's office to act on their claims. Woznak's case illustrates the complexity of legal standards regarding prosecutorial discretion and the limits of mandamus relief in Ohio.
Moreover, the ruling clarifies that a mere disagreement with a prosecutor's decision does not constitute grounds for a writ of mandamus. This decision reinforces the notion that not all allegations of wrongdoing will lead to criminal prosecution, especially when the evidence does not support the claims made.
What's Next
Woznak has the option to appeal the ruling to a higher court, but details regarding any potential appeal were not available in the court filing. There is no indication of any related cases pending that would affect this matter.