Yu v. Ohio State Univ. Med. Ctr.
2017 Ohio 8697
| Ohio Ct. Cl. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Jianfeng Yu, a native Mandarin speaker with limited English, underwent a screening colonoscopy at OSU Medical Center in January 2013. An independent contractor physician (Dr. Emlich) performed the procedure.
- Yu requested a Mandarin interpreter; telephone interpretation was provided by Xinxing Zhou, an independent contractor of Pacific Interpreters, via OSUMC’s contracted language line. A single ~27-minute call covered pre-procedure history and the physician’s discussion.
- Yu signed an English informed-consent form that he contends he could not read; he asserts the interpreter left the call before the form was presented and that he was not informed in Mandarin of the risk of colon perforation.
- During the colonoscopy Dr. Emlich perforated Yu’s colon, requiring emergency surgery and hospitalization. Yu sued OSUMC (and others) alleging lack of informed consent and negligence in providing translation/interpretation services.
- OSUMC moved for summary judgment arguing (1) lack-of-informed-consent claims run against the physician (not the hospital) when the physician is an independent contractor per R.C. 2317.54, and (2) OSUMC provided a qualified telephonic interpreter and did not breach any independent duty to Yu. Pacific moved for summary judgment on indemnity (later denied as moot).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether OSUMC is liable for lack of informed consent | Yu contends he was not informed in Mandarin of the risk (colon perforation) and thus lacked informed consent | OSUMC: Dr. Emlich (independent contractor) is responsible; R.C. 2317.54 bars hospital liability for physician failure to obtain consent | Court: Claim is effectively a lack-of-informed-consent claim against the physician; OSUMC entitled to summary judgment under R.C. 2317.54 |
| Whether OSUMC owed independent duty to provide adequate translation/interpretation | Yu argues OSUMC negligently failed to provide written consent in Mandarin or in-person/videoconference sight-translation, violating its policies | OSUMC: It provided qualified telephonic interpretation via Pacific and had no notice interpreter was inadequate; policy violations do not establish legal duty/standard of care | Court: No legal duty shown; internal policies do not create standard of care; summary judgment for OSUMC |
| Whether OSUMC has indemnity claim against Pacific | OSUMC asserts Pacific’s interpreter may have failed to accurately interpret, and contract requires Pacific to indemnify OSUMC | Pacific contends it provided contracted telephone interpretation only and Yu settled separately with Pacific | Court: OSUMC summary judgment renders third-party indemnity claim moot; Pacific’s summary judgment denied as moot |
| Whether Pacific can pursue cross-claims against Yu after settlement | Pacific seeks declaratory relief / breach of contract to require indemnity from Yu based on a prior settlement | Yu had executed a release settling claims against Pacific/Zhou for $17,500 | Court: Yu is estopped from further recovery against Pacific/Zhou by prior settlement; Pacific’s cross-claims denied as moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Gilbert v. Summit Cty., 104 Ohio St.3d 660 (recognizing standard for summary judgment)
- Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317 (standard for construing evidence in summary judgment)
- Nickell v. Gonzalez, 17 Ohio St.3d 136 (elements of lack-of-informed-consent claim)
- Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., Inc., 99 Ohio St.3d 79 (negligence elements: duty, breach, proximate cause, damages)
- Bedel v. Univ. of Cincinnati Hosp., 107 Ohio App.3d 420 (informed consent may be oral)
- Grandillo v. Montesclaros, 137 Ohio App.3d 691 (treatment-related consent claims may be medical claims barred against hospital when physician is independent contractor)
- Wise v. Gursky, 66 Ohio St.2d 241 (rendering related claims moot when a primary claim is decided)