Zidron v. Metts
2017 Ohio 1118
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On October 28, 2013, Dr. Amy M. Zidron (assistant professor at OU-HCOM and employed clinically by University Medical Associates (UMA)) treated minor patient Bradley Metts at UMA; plaintiffs later alleged medical negligence causing serious injury.
- Dr. Zidron held dual roles: OU-HCOM assistant professor (state employment) with duties including clinical teaching, and UMA clinician under a separate private employment agreement controlling her clinical practice.
- OU-HCOM sought an immunity determination under R.C. 2743.02(F) to decide whether Dr. Zidron was personally immune under R.C. 9.86 for the October 28 treatment.
- Key factual dispute: whether Dr. Jacqueline Fisher (a CORE resident) was present and being supervised during Bradley’s visit (which would indicate Dr. Zidron was performing clinical teaching for the state) or whether Dr. Zidron saw Bradley without a resident (indicating private practice, outside state scope).
- Electronic medical records showed Dr. Fisher accessed many other charts that morning but did not access Bradley’s chart; Zidron could not recall whether Fisher was present and offered habit evidence that residents typically saw patients first.
- The magistrate and Court of Claims found, on the record and weight of evidence, that Dr. Fisher was not present for Bradley’s appointment and that Zidron was acting manifestly outside the scope of her state employment; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Zidron was acting within the scope of state employment (clinical teaching) when treating Bradley on 10/28/13 | Metts (through OU-HCOM in the hearing) argued Zidron was not teaching and thus not within scope | Zidron argued she routinely supervised residents and habit evidence established a resident was present, so she was performing state duties | Court held Zidron was not engaged in clinical teaching that day (no resident involvement shown) and thus acted manifestly outside state employment |
| Which party bears the burden to prove lack of immunity in a R.C. 2743.02(F) proceeding | Zidron argued the burden rests on the party seeking to strip immunity (i.e., plaintiff) and that the Court misallocated the burden | OU-HCOM assumed the burden at the hearing (as plaintiff Metts did not participate); Court of Claims stated the burden rests with the party seeking to disprove immunity | Court agreed the burden lies with the party seeking to disprove immunity but found no reversible error: here OU-HCOM had assumed that burden and the record shows the court did not improperly place the burden on Zidron |
Key Cases Cited
- Theobald v. Univ. of Cincinnati, 111 Ohio St.3d 541 (2006) (scope-of-employment for dual-status physicians turns on the practitioner’s state duties and whether engaged in those duties when harm occurred)
- Johns v. Univ. of Cincinnati Med. Assocs., 101 Ohio St.3d 234 (2004) (Court of Claims has exclusive original jurisdiction to determine personal immunity under R.C. 9.86; state is sole defendant in Court of Claims actions)
- Ries v. Ohio State Univ. Med. Ctr., 137 Ohio St.3d 151 (2013) (a physician’s duties as a state employee can include providing clinical care whether or not teaching is occurring, depending on evidence of duties and context)
- Conley v. Shearer, 64 Ohio St.3d 284 (1992) (if Court of Claims finds state employee not entitled to immunity, employee is subject to suit in common pleas)