Abraham v. State ( 2011 )


Menu:
  • [Cite as Abraham v. State, 
    2011-Ohio-7005
    .]
    Court of Claims of Ohio
    The Ohio Judicial Center
    65 South Front Street, Third Floor
    Columbus, OH 43215
    614.387.9800 or 1.800.824.8263
    www.cco.state.oh.us
    JOANN C. ABRAHAM, et al.
    Plaintiffs
    v.
    STATE OF OHIO
    Defendant
    Case No. 2010-07741
    Judge Clark B. Weaver Sr.
    DECISION
    {¶1} An evidentiary hearing was conducted in this matter to determine whether
    Mark Harding, M.D., and Sasidhar Kilaru, M.D., are entitled to civil immunity pursuant to
    R.C. 2743.02(F) and 9.86. This case arises out of the medical treatment rendered to
    plaintiff, JoAnn Abraham, on October 12-14, 2007, at Good Samaritan Hospital in
    Cincinnati, Ohio.
    {¶2} R.C. 2743.02(F) states, in part:
    {¶3} “A civil action against an officer or employee, as defined in section 109.36 of
    the Revised Code, that alleges that the officer’s or employee’s conduct was manifestly
    outside the scope of the officer’s or employee’s employment or official responsibilities,
    or that the officer or employee acted with malicious purpose, in bad faith, or in a wanton
    or reckless manner shall first be filed against the state in the court of claims, which has
    exclusive, original jurisdiction to determine, initially, whether the officer or employee is
    entitled to personal immunity under section 9.86 of the Revised Code and whether the
    courts of common pleas have jurisdiction over the civil action.”
    {¶4} R.C. 9.86 states, in part:
    {¶5} “[N]o officer or employee [of the state] shall be liable in any civil action that
    arises under the law of this state for damage or injury caused in the performance of his
    duties, unless the officer’s or employee’s actions were manifestly outside the scope of
    his employment or official responsibilities, or unless the officer or employee acted with
    malicious purpose, in bad faith, or in a wanton or reckless manner.”
    {¶6} “[I]n an action to determine whether a physician or other health-care
    practitioner is entitled to personal immunity from liability pursuant to R.C. 9.86 and
    2743.02(A)(2), the Court of Claims must initially determine whether the practitioner is a
    state employee. If there is no express contract of employment, the court may require
    other evidence to substantiate an employment relationship, such as financial and
    corporate documents, W-2 forms, invoices, and other billing practices. If the court
    determines that the practitioner is not a state employee, the analysis is completed and
    R.C. 9.86 does not apply.” Theobald v. Univ. of Cincinnati, 
    111 Ohio St.3d 541
    , 2006-
    Ohio-6208, ¶30.
    {¶7} Drs. Harding and Kilaru assert that they are entitled to civil immunity
    inasmuch as they were teaching one or more resident physicians affiliated with the
    University of Cincinnati (UC) at all times relevant to plaintiffs’ complaint. There is no
    dispute that resident physicians affiliated with UC performed clinical rotations at Good
    Samaritan and other hospitals in the Cincinnati area pursuant to a “Master Affiliation
    Agreement for Graduate Medical Education” between TriHealth (the parent company of
    Good Samaritan Hospital), UC, and University Hospital, Inc. (Defendant’s Exhibit A.)
    {¶8} At the hearing, however, Drs. Harding and Kilaru each testified that they do
    not hold faculty appointments or any other offices or positions with UC, that they do not
    practice under the direction of UC, and that their only relationship to UC is teaching UC
    residents who rotate through Good Samaritan Hospital.
    {¶9} The court notes that in the post-hearing brief submitted by Drs. Harding and
    Kilaru, they rely on the decision of the Tenth District Court of Appeals in Engel v. Univ.
    of Toledo College of Medicine, 
    184 Ohio App.3d 669
    , 
    2009-Ohio-3957
    , to argue that
    their lack of any faculty appointment with UC does not deprive them of personal
    Case No. 2010-07741                       -2-                                   ENTRY
    immunity under R.C. 9.86. However, the Supreme Court of Ohio recently reversed the
    appellate decision, holding that a physician with no contractual relationship with the
    state, whose actions were not controlled by the state, who was not paid by the state,
    and who held no appointed office or position with the state, was not entitled to personal
    immunity pursuant to R.C. 9.86. See Engel v. Univ. of Toledo College of Medicine, Slip
    Opinion No. 
    2011-Ohio-3375
    .
    {¶10} Based upon the totality of the evidence, the court concludes that Mark
    Harding, M.D., and Sasidhar Kilaru, M.D., were not employees of the state of Ohio and
    that they are not entitled to immunity pursuant to R.C. 9.86 and 2743.02(F).
    Accordingly, the courts of common pleas have jurisdiction over any civil actions that
    may be filed against them based upon the allegations in this case.
    Court of Claims of Ohio
    The Ohio Judicial Center
    65 South Front Street, Third Floor
    Columbus, OH 43215
    614.387.9800 or 1.800.824.8263
    www.cco.state.oh.us
    JOANN C. ABRAHAM, et al.
    Plaintiffs
    v.
    STATE OF OHIO
    Defendant
    Case No. 2010-07741
    Judge Clark B. Weaver Sr.
    JUDGMENT ENTRY
    {¶11} The court held an evidentiary hearing to determine civil immunity pursuant
    to R.C. 9.86 and 2743.02(F). Upon hearing all the evidence and for the reasons set
    forth in the decision filed concurrently herewith, the court finds that Mark Harding, M.D.,
    and Sasidhar Kilaru, M.D., are not entitled to immunity pursuant to R.C. 9.86 and
    2743.02(F) and that the courts of common pleas have jurisdiction over any civil actions
    that may be filed against them based upon the allegations in this case.
    {¶12} Inasmuch as all claims against the state were dismissed on October 12,
    2010, and this case remained pending for the limited purpose of determining whether
    Drs. Harding and Kilaru are entitled to immunity, plaintiffs’ complaint is DISMISSED. All
    pending motions are DENIED as moot. Court costs are assessed against plaintiffs.
    The clerk shall serve upon all parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon
    the journal.
    Case No. 2010-07741                -2-                               ENTRY
    _____________________________________
    CLARK B. WEAVER SR.
    Judge
    cc:
    Brian M. Kneafsey, Jr.              Frederick H. Green
    Assistant Attorney General          4015 Executive Park Drive, Suite 230
    150 East Gay Street, 18th Floor     Cincinnati, Ohio 45241
    Columbus, Ohio 43215-3130
    Teri A. Wallace                     James P. Triona
    1014 Vine Street, Suite 1919        Paul J. Vollman
    Cincinnati, Ohio 45202              2021 Auburn Avenue
    Cincinnati, Ohio 45219
    Filed December 5, 2011
    To S.C. reporter March 5, 2012
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2010-07741

Judges: Weaver

Filed Date: 12/5/2011

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 3/3/2016