Ries v. Ohio State University Medical Center

Summary

The Supreme Court of Ohio held that a physician employed by a state university medical school acted within the scope of state employment when providing clinical care, even though no medical student or resident was present. Because the physician's clinical duties advanced the interests of the state, he was entitled to personal immunity under R.C. 9.86 absent conduct outside the scope of employment or malicious, bad-faith, wanton, or reckless conduct. The court affirmed the judgment of the Tenth District Court of Appeals.

Holdings

1. A state-university faculty physician acts within the scope of state employment when providing clinical services to patients at the university medical center, even if no medical student or resident is present, when the physician's state-defined duties include clinical care and the conduct advances the state's interests.
2. A physician's simultaneous employment or affiliation with a private medical-practice entity does not defeat immunity under R.C. 9.86 if the physician was also acting within the scope of state employment when the injury occurred.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a faculty physician at a state medical school acts within the scope of state employment, and is therefore personally immune under R.C. 9.86, when providing clinical care at a university medical center without a medical student or resident present.
2. Whether the physician's simultaneous affiliation with a nonprofit private medical-practice corporation defeats state-employee immunity.

Disposition

affirmed