Aljaberi v. Neurocare Ctr., Inc.
113 N.E.3d 40
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Dr. Mohammed Aljaberi was a long‑time shareholder, director, and senior physician at Neurocare; in September 2016 the board voted to remove him as director and terminate his employment for misconduct which Aljaberi admitted at deposition.
- Neurocare physicians Drake and Stalker filed a complaint with the State Medical Board of Ohio about Aljaberi shortly after his termination.
- Aljaberi sued Neurocare and the two physicians in the Stark County Court of Common Pleas asserting claims including breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, civil conspiracy, conversion, and requests for corporate records and accounting.
- During discovery Aljaberi requested all communications from Neurocare to the State Medical Board referencing him; Neurocare objected claiming those materials are statutorily confidential and privileged under R.C. Chapter 4731.
- The trial court ordered in camera review and then compelled production; Neurocare appealed the trial court’s order to produce the Medical Board submissions.
- The appellate court reversed, holding reports to the State Medical Board under R.C. Chapter 4731 are confidential and not discoverable, and therefore the trial court erred in ordering disclosure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether documents Neurocare sent to the State Medical Board are discoverable | Aljaberi: report was retaliatory and did not meet statutory requirements, so no statutory confidentiality applies | Neurocare: reports are statutorily confidential/privileged under R.C. §4731.224 and §4731.22(F)(5) and thus not discoverable | Reversed: reports are protected by the statutory confidentiality and not subject to discovery |
| Whether timing requirements in R.C. §4731.224(C) bar confidentiality | Aljaberi: the report did not meet the 60‑day timing requirement and thus loses protection | Neurocare: the report fits within subsection (B) (mandatory reporting) which has no 60‑day limit | Held: report falls under (B), so the 60‑day requirement in (C) is inapplicable |
| Whether an employee’s testimony to the Medical Board waived the privilege | Aljaberi: testimony by Neurocare secretary Ms. Wesie amounted to waiver | Neurocare: an employee lacks authority to waive corporate privilege for the entity | Held: no waiver—privilege belongs to the corporate entity, not individual non‑decisionmaking employees |
| Standard of review for privilege dispute | N/A (procedural) | N/A | Court applied de novo review to the legal privilege question, deferring to trial court on underlying factual findings when necessary |
Key Cases Cited
- Ward v. Summa Health Sys., 128 Ohio St.3d 212 (Ohio 2010) (discusses standard of review for discovery issues and privilege)
- Med. Mut. of Ohio v. Schlotterer, 122 Ohio St.3d 181 (Ohio 2009) (privilege is question of law reviewed de novo)
- Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Weintraub, 471 U.S. 343 (U.S. 1985) (corporate attorney‑client privilege belongs to the corporation, not individual employees)