Case Title: Theobald v. Univ. of Cincinnati

Citation: 2006-Ohio-6208

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2006-12-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Theobald v. Univ. of Cincinnati, 111 Ohio St.3d 541, 2006-Ohio-6208.] 
 
 
 
THEOBALD ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as Theobald v. Univ. of Cincinnati, 111 Ohio St.3d 541, 2006-Ohio-6208.] 
Personal immunity — R.C. 9.86 — Test for determining whether health-care 
practitioner employed by a state facility and in private sector is entitled to 
personal immunity. 
(No. 2005-0896 — Submitted March 28, 2006 — Decided December 13, 2006.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County,  
No. 02AP-560, 160 Ohio App.3d 342, 2005-Ohio-1510. 
__________________ 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J. 
{¶ 1} The issue before us involves personal immunity from liability, 
pursuant to R.C. 9.86 and 2743.02(F), of a physician or other health-care 
practitioner who is employed by a state facility and in the private sector.  The 
court of appeals remanded the matter to the Court of Claims to determine whether 
the health-care practitioners who allegedly injured the plaintiff were acting within 
the scope of their state employment by educating a resident or student at the time 
of the injury.  For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the court of 
appeals. 
{¶ 2} Plaintiff-appellant, Keith Theobald, was seriously injured in an 
automobile accident.  He was taken to University Hospital in Cincinnati.  Dr. 
Frederick A. Luchette was the attending trauma surgeon on duty who admitted 
and began treating Theobald.  Dr. Luchette contacted the neurotrauma 
department, and Theobald’s care was assigned to Dr. Jamal Taha, the interim 
director of the hospital’s neurotrauma team.  Because of the extent of Theobald’s 
injuries, Dr. Taha involved Dr. Andrew J. Ringer, the hospital’s chief 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
neurotrauma resident.  They decided that surgery was necessary, so Dr. Taha and 
Dr. Ringer met with the Theobalds to obtain their consent to the surgery. 
{¶ 3} Prior to the surgery, a student nurse anesthetist, Amy Wehrman, 
prepared a preanesthesia note setting forth Theobald’s history and physical 
condition.  Maureen Parrott, a certified registered nurse anesthetist, reviewed 
Wehrman’s note and discussed the plan for administering anesthesia during the 
surgery with Wehrman and Dr. Harsha Sharma, the anesthesiologist. 
{¶ 4} Theobald underwent ten hours of surgery in which Dr. Luchette, 
assisted by Dr. Steven Giss, a trauma resident, opened and closed the incision, 
and Dr. Taha, assisted by Dr. Ringer, performed the neurosurgical procedure.  Dr. 
Sharma and Parrott, assisted by Wehrman, administered the anesthesia and 
monitored Theobald’s condition. 
{¶ 5} When Theobald awoke, he could not see, he had lost the use of his 
right arm, and he had little mobility in his left arm.  In October 1999, Theobald 
and his wife, Jacqueline, individually and on behalf of their two minor children, 
filed an action for medical malpractice in the Hamilton County Court of Common 
Pleas against Dr. Luchette, Dr. Taha, Dr. Sharma, and Parrott, among others, in 
which they alleged that these defendants were negligent in providing medical care 
to Theobald during and after his surgery.  These four defendants, who claimed 
that they were state employees, asserted the defense of personal immunity 
pursuant to R.C. 9.86. 
{¶ 6} The common pleas court stayed the malpractice action to allow the 
Court of Claims to determine whether the defendants were entitled to immunity.  
Pursuant to R.C. 2743.02(F), the Theobalds filed an action in the Court of Claims 
against the University of Cincinnati to determine the issue of the four defendants’ 
personal immunity.  The Court of Claims allowed the defendants to join the 
proceedings, and then conducted a hearing to determine whether they were 
immune from suit as state employees. 
January Term, 2006 
3 
{¶ 7} On April 23, 2002, the Court of Claims concluded that the 
defendants were not entitled to personal immunity.  The court determined that Dr. 
Luchette and Dr. Sharma were employed by the state but that they were acting 
outside the scope of their employment when they treated Theobald because their 
private-practice plans had billed the Theobalds and received the money from the 
services rendered, and Theobald was treated at a private hospital.  The Court of 
Claims also concluded that Dr. Taha and Parrott were not state employees 
because they worked for and were paid by private corporations that merely 
contracted with the state.  The University of Cincinnati appealed.1 
{¶ 8} The Tenth District Court of Appeals concluded that all four 
individuals were employed by the state and reversed and remanded for the Court 
of Claims to reconsider whether each one was acting manifestly outside the scope 
of employment when the alleged negligence occurred.  See R.C. 9.86.  The 
appellate court disagreed with the Court of Claims’ examination of the issues 
based only on the financial factors.  The court reasoned that if the state’s interest 
is promoted when a health-care practitioner furthers the education of students and 
residents, then the Court of Claims had to determine whether the practitioner was 
educating a student when the alleged negligence occurred. 
{¶ 9} Thus, the appellate court instructed the Court of Claims to identify 
what the practitioner was doing when the alleged injury occurred and whether the 
practitioner was advancing the state’s interest at the time.  The Theobalds 
appealed. 
{¶ 10} This cause is before this court upon our acceptance of a 
discretionary appeal. 
                                                 
1.  The individuals attempted to appeal the Court of Claims’ decision.  The Tenth District Court of 
Appeals dismissed the appeals on the basis that the individuals lacked standing.  We affirmed, 
citing Johns v. Univ. of Cincinnati Med. Assoc., Inc., 101 Ohio St.3d 234, 2004-Ohio-824, 804 
N.E.2d 19, holding that “a state employee has no right to participate in the immunity 
determination proceedings before the Court of Claims or to appeal that determination.”  Theobald 
v. Univ. of Cincinnati, 101 Ohio St.3d 370, 371, 2004-Ohio-1527, 805 N.E.2d 1084. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
Personal Immunity for State Employee 
{¶ 11} The issue of personal immunity of a state employee is governed by 
the application of R.C. 9.86 and R.C. 2743.02(F).  R.C. 9.86 provides: 
{¶ 12} “Except for civil actions that arise out of the operation of a motor 
vehicle and civil actions in which the state is the plaintiff, no officer or employee 
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 the officer or employee acted with malicious purpose, 
in bad faith, or in a wanton or reckless manner.” 
{¶ 13} The Court of Claims has exclusive, original jurisdiction to 
determine whether a state employee is personally immune from liability in a civil 
action under R.C. 9.86 or whether the conduct was manifestly outside the scope of 
employment at the time the cause of action arose.2  R.C. 2743.02(F);  Johns v. 
Univ. of Cincinnati Med. Assoc., Inc., 101 Ohio St.3d 234, 2004-Ohio-824, 804 
N.E.2d 19.  If the Court of Claims determines that the state employee is immune 
from personal liability under R.C. 9.86, the claimant must assert his or her claims 
against the state and the state shall be liable for the employee’s acts or omissions.  
R.C. 2743.02(A)(2). 
{¶ 14} Thus, the Court of Claims’ analysis of personal immunity has two 
parts: Was the individual a state employee, and if so, was the individual acting 
within the scope of employment when the cause of action arose?  The Theobalds 
have not appealed the appellate court’s holding that these individuals were state 
employees for purposes of R.C. 9.86.  A “state employee,” for purposes of R.C. 
9.86, is defined in R.C. 109.36(A)(1) as a “person who, at the time a cause of 
action against the person arises, is * * * employed by the state.”  Thus, the issue 
                                                 
2.  Consequently, all decisions that are appealed from the Court of Claims are within the exclusive 
jurisdiction of the Tenth District Court of Appeals.  Both courts are located in Columbus, Ohio.   
January Term, 2006 
5 
before us involves the second part of the immunity analysis.  Although the issue 
of personal immunity is a question of law, whether an individual acted manifestly 
outside the scope of employment is a question of fact.  Hopper v. Univ. of 
Cincinnati (Aug. 3, 2000), Franklin App. No. 99AP-787. 
{¶ 15} The Revised Code does not define “scope of employment.”  The 
concept generally denotes an agency relationship in which the agent or employee 
is engaged in an activity that is logically related to the business of the principal or 
employer.  See Ruckman v. Cubby Drilling, Inc. (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 117, 120, 
689 N.E.2d 917;  Posin v. A.B.C. Motor Court Hotel, Inc. (1976), 45 Ohio St.2d 
271, 278, 74 O.O.2d 427, 344 N.E.2d 334.  For purposes of personal immunity 
under R.C. 9.86, a state employee acts within the scope of employment if the 
employee’s actions are “in furtherance of the interests of the state.”  Conley v. 
Shearer (1992), 64 Ohio St.3d 284, 287, 595 N.E.2d 862.  Thus, a state 
employee’s duties should define the scope of employment. 
Dual Employment 
{¶ 16} A health-care practitioner who has dual status as a private 
practitioner and as an employee of a state medical institution is potentially 
immune from liability for medical malpractice only when he or she is performing 
duties for the state.  Unless he or she acted “with malicious purpose, in bad faith, 
or in a wanton or reckless manner” or manifestly outside the scope of 
employment, the state employee is not liable for injury caused in the performance 
of those duties.  R.C. 9.86.  Because of this dual nature, courts have struggled to 
identify an appropriate analysis of the scope of employment for purposes of 
personal immunity.  “In many instances, the line between these two roles is 
blurred because the practitioner may be teaching by simply providing the student 
or resident an opportunity to observe while the practitioner treats a patient.”  
Theobald v. Univ. of Cincinnati, 160 Ohio App.3d 342, 2005-Ohio-1510, 827 
N.E.2d 365, at ¶ 34. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
{¶ 17} In early cases, courts analyzed billing procedures and other 
financial factors, including the comparison of a practitioner’s financial gain with 
the university’s financial gain from the medical treatment.  Katko v. Balcerzak 
(1987), 41 Ohio App.3d 375, 536 N.E.2d 10;  York v. Univ. of Cincinnati Med. 
Ctr. (Apr. 23, 1996), Franklin App. Nos. 95API09-1117, 95 API09-1127;  Kaiser 
v. Flege (Sept. 22, 1998), Franklin App. No. 98AP-146.  The courts reasoned that 
if the state directly received the financial benefits from the medical services 
rendered, or if it received a greater proportion of the fee than did the individual 
practitioner, then the practitioner was acting within the scope of employment for 
the state. 
{¶ 18} In Norman v. Ohio State Univ. Hosp. (1996), 116 Ohio App.3d 69, 
77, 686 N.E.2d 1146, however, the court expanded its analysis to examine the 
physician’s relationship with the patient in addition to the university’s financial 
benefit from the medical treatment at issue.  The court in Norman concluded that 
the plaintiff was a patient of the university clinic and saw the defendant-physician 
only while he was on call as part of his duties as a faculty member.  In addition, 
the court said that the university received most of the physician’s fee for the 
medical services.  Therefore, the court concluded that the physician’s conduct was 
within the scope of his employment with the state at the time the patient was 
allegedly injured, and thus he was entitled to personal immunity from liability. 
{¶ 19} In Ferguson v. Ohio State Univ. Med. Ctr. (June 22, 1999), 
Franklin App. No. 98AP-863, the court further explained that billing may be 
relevant but does not always determine when a practitioner is acting within the 
scope of employment with the state.  Instead, the court said that the key issue in 
the question of personal immunity is whether the physician “saw the patient only 
in his capacity as an attending physician supervising residents * * * or whether he 
saw the patient as a private patient.”  In Ferguson, although the physician’s 
private medical corporation billed the plaintiff for his services, the plaintiff’s only 
January Term, 2006 
7 
contact with the physician was as the attending physician supervising the resident 
who treated the plaintiff.  Thus, the court concluded that the physician was acting 
within the scope of his employment with the state, and he was entitled to personal 
immunity. 
{¶ 20} Following Ferguson, the court of appeals began to focus on the 
physician’s role at the time of the treatment and to place less emphasis on the 
financial factors.  For example, in Hopper v. Univ. of Cincinnati (Aug. 3, 2000), 
Franklin App. No. 99AP-787, the court concluded that the physician’s conduct 
was within the scope of employment as a state employee and thus the physician 
was entitled to personal immunity because he was supervising residents while 
treating the patient.  In Kaiser v. Ohio State Univ., Franklin App. No. 02AP-316, 
2002-Ohio-6030, a resident treated the plaintiff.  The attending physician was 
only minimally involved in the plaintiff’s care.  The court concluded that the 
attending physician acted as a supervisor and thus was entitled to personal 
immunity from liability because he was acting within the scope of his state 
employment. 
{¶ 21} The Theobalds ask us to adopt a bright-line test based on a health-
care practitioner’s billing practices to determine whether the practitioner’s actions 
were manifestly outside the scope of employment.  They argue that if the patient 
directly pays the practitioner, not the state, for the medical treatment at issue, then 
the practitioner was privately employed at the time of treatment and consequently 
was manifestly outside the scope of employment for purposes of R.C. 9.86. 
{¶ 22} The court of appeals faulted that approach, stating that the 
financial factors “generally have little bearing upon whether a practitioner is 
acting within the scope of his employment.”  Theobald, 160 Ohio App.3d 342, 
2005-Ohio-1510, 827 N.E.2d 365, at ¶ 46.  This is because, as the court of appeals 
explained, “[m]ost, if not all, Ohio state medical schools affiliate with separate 
corporations run and staffed by clinical faculty members to deal with the income 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
generated from the clinical faculty members’ practices.  These corporations, or 
practice plans, employ the medical school clinical faculty and provide the 
majority of the clinical faculty members’ salaries.  Additionally, the practice plans 
are responsible for billing and collecting payments for the services the clinical 
faculty members provide as part of their practice of medicine.”  Id. at ¶ 36.  This 
arrangement allows universities to attract and compensate highly qualified clinical 
instructors while the practice groups or corporations, in turn, financially 
contribute to maintain the medical departments within the university.  Id. at ¶ 37. 
{¶ 23} We agree with the court of appeals.  The financial factors may be 
relevant to the practitioner’s status as a state employee; however, they do not 
necessarily establish whether he or she was within the scope of that employment 
at the time a cause of action arose.  Instead, the question of scope of employment 
must turn on what the practitioner’s duties are as a state employee and whether 
the practitioner was engaged in those duties at the time of an injury.  Thus, proof 
of the content of the practitioner’s duties is crucial.  The Court of Claims must 
have evidence of those duties before it can be determined whether the actions 
allegedly causing a patient’s injury were “in furtherance of the interests of the 
state” or, in other words, within the scope of employment. 
{¶ 24} In this case, the court of appeals concluded that the practitioner’s 
duties included the education of students and residents.  The court thus instructed 
the Court of Claims to “first identify the aspect of the course of treatment that the 
plaintiff alleges gave rise to damage or injury,” then to “inquire whether the 
practitioner was educating a student or resident while rendering the allegedly 
negligent care to the patient.”  Id. at ¶ 46, 48. 
{¶ 25} We believe that this approach follows the language and intent of 
R.C. 9.86 and correctly focuses upon the purpose of the employment relationship, 
not on the business or financial arrangements between the practitioner and the 
state.  R.C. 9.86 is inclusive and makes no exception for persons who may 
January Term, 2006 
9 
simultaneously have other employment interests.  It provides immunity for all 
state employees as long as they are acting within the scope of their employment 
when the injury occurs. 
{¶ 26} Courts have applied this approach and determined that the 
practitioner is entitled to immunity.  In Kaiser v. Ohio State Univ., Franklin App. 
No. 02AP-316, 2002-Ohio-6030, the plaintiff was admitted to the university’s 
hospital through the emergency room.  A resident treated the plaintiff;  the 
attending physician briefly saw the plaintiff while supervising the resident.  The 
court concluded that the attending physician was involved in a supervisory role 
only and therefore, he was acting within the scope of state employment and 
entitled to personal immunity under R.C. 9.86. 
{¶ 27} In Hans v. Ohio State Univ. Med. Ctr., Ct. of Cl. 2001-10140, 
2005-Ohio-4457, 2005 WL 2065139, the defendant was a member of the Ohio 
State University’s medical school faculty and was also engaged in the private 
practice of medicine.  The plaintiff’s personal physician referred him to Ohio 
State University for surgery.  The defendant operated on the plaintiff at the 
university’s hospital in the presence of a resident.  The Court of Claims, applying 
Theobald, 160 Ohio App.3d 342, 2005-Ohio-1510, 827 N.E.2d 365, determined 
that the defendant had acted within the scope of employment when the alleged 
injury occurred because a resident was observing him perform the surgery. 
{¶ 28} However, if an employee’s actions are self-serving or have no 
relationship to the employer’s business, then the conduct is “manifestly outside 
the scope of employment,” and R.C. 9.86 does not apply.  Byrd v. Faber (1991), 
57 Ohio St.3d 56, 59, 565 N.E.2d 584;  Hidey v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol (Sept. 
22, 1998), Franklin App. No. 97API12-1587.  For example, in Johnson v. Univ. of 
Cincinnati, Franklin App. No. 04AP-926, 2005-Ohio-2203, the defendants were 
employed by the university’s medical school as faculty members and also 
conducted a clinical practice in which they supervised residents who rotated 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
10 
through the medical center.  The defendants treated the plaintiff at the clinic, but 
no resident or student was present at the time.  Consequently, the court concluded 
that the physicians treated the plaintiff in their private practice, outside the scope 
of their state employment, and that they were not entitled to personal immunity 
under R.C. 9.86. 
{¶ 29} In Wayman v. Univ. of Cincinnati Med. Ctr. (June 22, 2000), 
Franklin App. No. 99-AP-1055, the defendant was on the faculty of the 
university’s medical school and was also a member of a practice plan.  The 
defendant treated the plaintiff on several occasions at the offices of the practice 
plan but did not see her while teaching at the hospital.  The court concluded that 
the defendant had treated the plaintiff as a private patient at his own office, not at 
the university facility, and that his practice plan had billed for and received the 
proceeds from his services.  Thus, the defendant was not acting within the scope 
of his employment with the university at the time and was not entitled to personal 
immunity from liability. 
{¶ 30} Therefore, in 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. 
{¶ 31} If the court determines that the practitioner is a state employee, the 
court must next determine whether the practitioner was acting on behalf of the 
state when the patient was alleged to have been injured.  If not, then the 
practitioner was acting “manifestly outside the scope of employment” for 
purposes of R.C. 9.86.  If there is evidence that the practitioner’s duties include 
January Term, 2006 
11 
the education of students and residents, the court must determine whether the 
practitioner was in fact educating a student or resident when the alleged 
negligence occurred. 
{¶ 32} The Theobalds also ask us to require a health-care practitioner to 
obtain informed consent from a patient, except in emergency situations, in order 
to assert the defense of personal immunity under R.C. 9.86.  The statute does not 
require informed consent, and we will not read such a requirement into the statute.  
Instead, the Theobalds should direct this argument to the General Assembly. 
{¶ 33} The Theobalds did not appeal the issue of the individuals’ status as 
state employees, and thus these conclusions are now the law of the case.  The 
court of appeals’ remand is limited to the determination of whether the individuals 
were acting within the scope of their state employment when Theobald was 
injured. 
{¶ 34} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL and LANZINGER, JJ., 
concur. 
 
PFEIFER, J., dissents. 
__________________ 
 
PFEIFER, J., dissenting. 
{¶ 35} The majority opinion appears wholly concerned with how the 
scope-of-employment issue affects medical practitioners.  Although that concern 
is appropriate, it should be tempered by at least a suggestion that the concerns of 
the plaintiff have been considered.  The plaintiff in this case is the one who has 
been grievously injured, not the various doctors and nurses. 
{¶ 36} In a case such as this, the doctors will ultimately be determined to 
be responsible, not responsible, or immune.  In any event, the doctors will not 
suffer unduly; any financial liability they incur will be covered by insurance.  The 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
12 
same cannot be said for the plaintiff.  If Theobald does not prevail, the lengthy 
delay will not have prejudiced him.  But if he does prevail, the delays will have 
deprived him of several years during which the money he ultimately receives 
could have alleviated some of the unfortunate consequences of the negligence he 
suffered.  The plaintiff is already seven years into this litigation, and, even after 
today’s decision, he still does not know which court he should be in. 
{¶ 37} The majority opinion does not address the plight of plaintiffs who 
feel (reasonably) that they must file two lawsuits (one in the Court of Claims and 
one in the court of common pleas) because it is so difficult to determine which 
venue is proper.  See Johns v. Univ. of Cincinnati Med. Assoc., Inc., 101 Ohio 
St.3d 234, 2004-Ohio-824, 804 N.E.2d 19.  The concern about dual filings is 
heightened when, as here, multiple doctors are involved because the chances that 
one of them is a teaching doctor (perhaps entitled to immunity) are greater.  This 
is a nightmare scenario for a plaintiff. When in the Court of Claims, the doctor 
accused of negligence will be pointing at the empty chair — that is, at the doctor 
who is susceptible to suit only in the court of common pleas.  And when in the 
court of common pleas, the doctor accused of negligence will be pointing at a 
different empty chair — at the doctor who is susceptible to suit only in the Court 
of Claims.  This concern is general and not specific to this case, in which it 
appears that the anesthesiologist is the person most likely to have committed 
negligence. 
{¶ 38} The new test set forth by the majority opinion apparently 
immunizes a doctor from negligence whenever negligence occurs in the presence 
of a student.  This test is imbued with the fiction that teaching doctors are always 
teaching.  I have the utmost respect for the medical practitioners in this state.  
Countless Ohioans have been well treated through the years.  But doctors are busy 
professionals, often called upon to make irreversible decisions of the utmost 
magnitude with little time for reflection, and they make mistakes.  When they do, 
January Term, 2006 
13 
whether they are immune from liability should not depend solely on whether a 
student is present.  Teaching by osmosis is not the same as talking a resident 
through an operation.  The mere presence of a student does not establish that 
instruction is taking place. 
{¶ 39} The facts of this case suggest that, to the extent any teaching was 
taking place, it was purely incidental.  Theobald had been in a terrible automobile 
accident.  He was under considerable physical stress and the doctors were under 
considerable mental stress.  They needed to act quickly, and they needed to 
perform at the highest professional level.  They had neither the time nor the 
inclination to teach – they were trying to save a life and as much bodily 
functioning as possible.  In that situation, teaching is not a priority or even a 
consideration.  But under the test set forth today, our state’s highly skilled and 
trained teaching doctors will be encouraged to make sure a student is available 
every time they operate.  After all, would there be any better way to avoid 
personal liability for negligence?  
{¶ 40} The quest for a simple rule should not override logic.  Teaching 
doctors are not always teaching, even when a student is present.  Teaching doctors 
serve two masters — their patient and the university for whom they have agreed 
to teach.  We should not so easily adopt a rule that declares that one of the masters 
is always dominant.  The former rule used by the court of appeals, which focused 
on financial factors, seems to strike a better balance between the two masters.  It 
allowed judges to determine whether a doctor was serving his or her own interests 
or those of the state based on a variety of factors.  That is as it should be.  A 
doctor who is one percent teaching and 99 percent engaged in private practice for 
profit should not automatically be granted immunity based on that nominal 
amount of teaching.  Having a student look over his or her shoulder during 
surgery should not immunize a doctor from personal liability.  At the same time, 
when a doctor is involved in substantive teaching, for example, by guiding a 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
14 
resident doctor through a complicated (or even relatively simple) procedure, the 
situation is radically different and the teaching doctor should be entitled to 
immunity. 
{¶ 41} Another far-reaching consideration of which the majority opinion 
appears unaware is cost-shifting.  Every time a doctor is granted immunity 
because he or she is teaching, even if that teaching is incidental, the burden of his 
or her negligence is transferred to the state.  Such a profound change in policy 
ought not to be arrived at lightly – it should at least be addressed.  The real 
beneficiaries of this cost-shifting are insurance companies because they will pay 
on fewer claims.  And they likely won’t reduce premiums because they cannot 
know in advance whether any future negligence will occur in the presence of a 
student. 
{¶ 42} This cost-shifting policy change could have been effected by the 
General Assembly; it has thus far chosen not to do so.  But now, the University of 
Cincinnati, a state entity, wants to have it both ways.  (Despite its name, 
University Hospital is privately owned.)  In this case, which was originally filed 
in 1999, the university argues that teaching during an operation, however 
incidental the teaching, is within the scope of employment, and, therefore, that its 
teaching doctors are immune from personal liability.  In Johns, 101 Ohio St.3d 
234, 2004-Ohio-824, 804 N.E.2d 19, which was also originally filed in 1999, the 
university made the opposite argument.  It stipulated in the Court of Claims that 
the doctor sued in that case was acting outside the scope of his state employment, 
even though that doctor supervised an operation that “was primarily performed by 
a third-year resident.”  Id. at ¶ 3.  For the state to argue contrary positions in two 
cases that were filed at the same time concerning similar issues is at best 
unhelpful and at worst unconscionable.  The state ought to be serving the interests 
of justice, not subverting them. 
January Term, 2006 
15 
{¶ 43} Finally and most important, the majority opinion also fails to 
consider the issue of a jury trial.  When the state is a defendant (as it would be, 
based on this opinion, whenever a student is present when a teaching doctor 
commits negligence), no jury trial is allowed in the Court of Claims.  R.C. 
2743.03(C)(1) and 2743.11.  By forcing more cases to the Court of Claims, this 
opinion effectively prohibits plaintiffs from asserting their fundamental 
constitutional right to a trial by jury.  Section 5, Article I of the Ohio Constitution 
(“The right to a trial by jury shall be inviolate * * * ”).  See Arrington v. 
DaimlerChrysler Corp., 109 Ohio St.3d 539, 2006-Ohio-3257, 849 N.E.2d 1004 
(Pfeifer, J., dissenting), State ex rel. Russo v. McDonnell, 110 Ohio St.3d 144, 
2006-Ohio-3459, 852 N.E.2d 145 (Pfeifer, J., dissenting). 
{¶ 44} I dissent. 
__________________ 
 
James P. Sullivan and Douglas C. Holland, for appellants. 
 
Jim Petro, Attorney General, Douglas R. Cole, State Solicitor, and 
Stephen P. Carney, Senior Deputy Solicitor, for appellee. 
 
Jerome A. McTague, urging affirmance for amicus curiae, Medical 
College of Ohio Physicians. 
______________________