Hardridge v. Univ. of Cincinnati

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Ohio » Court of Claims » 2001 » Hardridge v. Univ. of Cincinnati

State: Ohio

Court: Ohio Southern District Court

Docket No: 2001-Ohio-3950

Case Date: 12/14/2001

Plaintiff: Hardridge

Defendant: Univ. of Cincinnati

Preview:[Cite as Hardridge v. Univ. of Cincinnati, 2001-Ohio-3950.]

IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO

TENESHA HARDRIDGE, etc., et al.: Plaintiffs v. UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI Defendant : : : CASE NO. 2001-02180 JUDGMENT ENTRY Judge J. Warren Bettis

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

The court held an evidentiary hearing in this case to determine whether Helen How, M.D.; Christian D. Froerer, M.D.; and Scott C. Makemson, M.D. are entitled to civil immunity pursuant to R.C. 2743.02(F) and 9.86. R.C. 2743.02(F) provides, in part: 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 his 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. *** R.C. 9.86 provides, in part: *** no officer or employee [of the state] shall be liable in any civil action that arises under the law of this state for damages 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. *** (Emphasis added.) At the outset of the proceedings, counsel for defendant, University of Cincinnati (UC) and counsel for Helen How, M.D., stated that they were in agreement that Dr. How should be granted immunity. Therefore, the court finds that Dr. How acted within

the scope of her employment with the UC at all times relevant hereto. The court further finds that Dr. How did not act with

malicious purpose, in bad faith, or in a wanton or reckless manner toward plaintiffs. Consequently, Dr. How is entitled to

civil immunity pursuant to R.C. 9.86 and R.C. 2743.02(F) and the courts of common pleas do not have jurisdiction over civil actions against her based upon the allepgations in this case. Additionally, counsel for Christian D. Froerer, M.D., and Scott C. Makemson, M.D., stated that immunity is not at issue for either of these physicians. Neither Dr. Froerer nor Dr. Makemson

has asserted civil immunity in the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas or in this court. Accordingly, this case is ready

to be set for trial in the normal course. ___________________________________ J. WARREN BETTIS

Case No. 2001-02180

-3-

JUDGMENT ENTRY

Judge

[Cite as Hardridge v. Univ. of Cincinnati, 2001-Ohio-3950.] Entry cc: Ronald A. Meyer 1700 Fourth & Vine Tower 1 West Fourth Street Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Peter E. DeMarco 65 East State St., 16th Fl. Columbus, Ohio 43215 Information Copy: David Lockmeyer 119 E. Court Street Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Marilena Walters 175 South Third Street, 10th Fl. Columbus, Ohio 43215 LH/cmd
Filed 12-14-2001 Jr. Vol. 689, Pgs. 173-175 To S.C. reporter 2-4-2002

Attorney for Plaintiffs

Assistant Attorney General

Attorney for Helen How, M.D.

Attorney for Christian D. Froerer, M.D. and Scott C. Makemson, M.D.

Download 2001-02180-0.pdf