State ex rel. Sawicki v. Lucas Cty. Court of Common Pleas

Summary

The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed a writ of procedendo requiring the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas and Judge Zmuda to vacate a stay and proceed with a medical-malpractice claim against a private employer under respondeat superior. The court held that R.C. 2743.02(F) did not require a prior Court of Claims immunity determination because neither the state nor the state-employed physician was the subject of the remaining action. It further held that the physician’s potential personal immunity did not shield the private employer from vicarious liability.

Holdings

1. R.C. 2743.02(F) did not apply because the action remaining before the common pleas court was against only the physician's private employer, not against the state or the state-employed physician, and none of the statutory conditions triggering the Court of Claims's exclusive initial jurisdiction was satisfied.
2. A person may simultaneously be the servant or agent of two separate employers as to the same act when the service to one does not involve abandonment of the service to the other; thus, the physician could have acted as an agent of both the state hospital and Associated.
3. An employee's personal immunity from civil liability does not shield a private employer from liability for the employee's conduct under respondeat superior.
4. Sawicki was entitled to a writ of procedendo because the common pleas court erroneously stayed the case, and a time-barred, inappropriate Court of Claims action would not provide an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.

Questions Presented

1. Whether R.C. 2743.02(F) required the common pleas court to stay a medical-negligence action brought solely against a private employer on a respondeat-superior theory because the allegedly negligent physician was also a state employee.
2. Whether a state-employed physician may simultaneously act as an agent of a private employer for the same conduct in a hospital setting.
3. Whether the physician's personal statutory immunity bars the private employer's vicarious liability.
4. Whether Sawicki had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law that precluded a writ of procedendo.

Disposition

affirmed