Gharibshahi v. State
2014 Ohio 1529
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- In 2011, Sooshyance Gharibshahi (minor) via mother sued the State of Ohio and OSU Medical Center for alleged negligent delivery in May 2008.
- Dr. Sarah Artman was later sued in Franklin County for related claims; Court of Claims determined immunity first before jurisdiction over Artman could attach.
- The Court of Claims held Artman was not a state officer or employee under R.C. 109.36(A)(1)(a) or (b), and thus not entitled to immunity under R.C. 9.86 and 2743.02(F).
- Artman had a long-standing faculty role at OSU since 1991, was an unpaid auxiliary faculty member in 2008, and held OSUMC privileges to practice; she supervised residents but received no monetary compensation from OSU.
- The court applied the Engel framework (and related Poe guidance) to determine whether a private physician was an OSU employee or had a symbiotic relationship with the state; findings favored non-employment status.
- The appellate court affirmed the Court of Claims, overruling Artman’s assignments of error and upholding denial of immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Artman was an OSU state employee under 109.36(A)(1)(a) | Artman contends she was employed by the state. | The state did not employ Artman; no contractual control or monetary compensation established employment. | Artman was not a state employee under 109.36(A)(1)(a). |
| Whether Artman was within 109.36(A)(1)(b) (personal services contract) and whether evidence was properly excluded | Artman argued she rendered medical services under a state contract and evidence should have been admitted. | No valid written contract; evidence improperly admitted; OSU Health Plan discussed but not proven to be a state department. | The court rejected 109.36(A)(1)(b) analysis; evidence exclusion upheld; no immunity under this subsection. |
| Whether Artman was denied due process to participate in the immunity hearing under 2743.02(F) | Artman claimed she lacked discovery and a continuance to present exhibits. | Discretionary rulings on discovery and continuance were within the magistrate/Court of Claims authority. | Assignments of error on participation and discovery were overruled. |
Key Cases Cited
- Theobald v. Univ. of Cincinnati, 111 Ohio St.3d 541 (Ohio 2006) (immunity scope and officers/employees within 9.86 framework)
- Poe v. Univ. of Cincinnati, 2013-Ohio-5451 (10th Dist. No. 12AP-929 (Ohio 2013)) (focus on when a physician is an OSU employee under 9.86; supportive of Engel factors)
- Engel v. Univ. of Toledo College of Medicine, 130 Ohio St.3d 263 (Ohio 2011) (establishes three Engel factors for employment status; sovereign functions concept)
- Phillips v. Ohio State Univ. Med. Ctr., 2013-Ohio-464 (10th Dist. No. 12AP-414) (symbiotic relationship analysis and employment status at OSU-OSUMC)
- Marotto v. Ohio State Univ. Med. Ctr., 2012-Ohio-6158 (10th Dist. No. 12AP-27) (discusses Court of Claims exclusive jurisdiction over immunity; value in context)
- Nease v. Med. College Hosps., 64 Ohio St.3d 396 (Ohio 1992) (early framework for state employment vs. independent contractor analysis)