Just one new case of note this week, coming from the First District. In Roy v. Durrani, 2015-Ohio-11, the court provided an important reminder when settling claims against one of several related defendants: made sure to only release the defendant actually paying money unless the relationship is based upon agency principles.
The plaintiff, a minor, was born with a brain disorder causing numerous physical disabilities, including the curvature of his spine. The treating physician, Dr. Durrani, was an employee of Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center at the time of treatment, but he left the hospital and opened his own clinic called the Center for Advanced Spine Technologies. The treatment involved inserting a metal growth rod in the plaintiff's back. It turned out the surgery was intended to treat scoliosis. The only problem was the plaintiff suffered from kyphosis, not scoliosis.
Shortly after filing a medical malpractice claim, the plaintiffs entered a confidential settlement agreement with the hospital. The settlement included a clause releasing all claims against the hospital's employees. At the time of treatment, the doctor was employed by the hospital. Therein lied the problem. The First District held that the release absolved the doctor and his clinic of liability and dismissed the remaining claims. It appears that this was at least the second time that the doctor and his clinic avoided liability based on this premise. The case is not heavy on citations, but rather serves as an important reminder when settling claims against parties that have a relationship. The plaintiff entered a confidential agreement, but the trial court granted a motion to compel the agreement so Durrani could use it in an effort to disgorge his own liability even though he was not a party to the settlement.
The court also discussed basic contract principles such as unilateral mistake, but none were sufficient to void the settlement agreement. Moving forward for plaintiffs, it is important to make certain that any release of liability is specifically limited the settling defendant. It appears, however, this might not be sufficient. The court applied basic agency principles in arriving at the conclusion (although the court made no reference to Natl. Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Wuerth, 122 Ohio St.3d 594, 2009–Ohio–3601, 913 N.E.2d 939, ¶ 22, the First District mentioned the agency concept in Wilson v. Durrani, 2014-Ohio-1023). A plaintiff can sue both the agent and the principal, but is only entitled to recover once so that settlement with the hospital, the principal, absolved the agent, Dr. Durrani, of liability. This creates a problem because hospitals whose employees or agents are sued individually, will likely spend far more time in litigation to avoid this harsh result.
