A Franklin County appellate panel sided with a New Albany doctor’s argument that she was not required to plead an exception to Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center’s assertion that it was immune from her medical-negligence claim.
The Tenth District Court of Appeals panel reversed the Ohio Court of Claims decision in favor of the health-care facility, remanding the matter to the lower court to remedy the deficiency.
According to case background, Dr. Anjana Samadder was admitted as a patient to the Wexner Medical Center April 7, 2020, for treatment of respiratory failure resulting from the COVID-19 virus.
Samadder alleged that the manner in which the facility’s doctors and related health-care staff treated her condition resulted in injuries including a perforated right ventricle, which required emergency surgery, and permanent muscle, nerve and blood vessel damage to her left arm.
A vascular surgeon employed by the medical center performed a bedside procedure to remove a blood clot from a blood vessel in Samadder’s left arm April 18, 2020, summary provided.
Samadder said she developed a syndrome in which the pressure in the muscle permanently damaged the muscle itself and the associated nerves and blood vessels — a condition that went undiagnosed for more than a week.
Treatment of the resulting condition was a fasciotomy — a procedure in which the connective tissue surrounding the muscle is cut to relieve pressure, case background continued.
Samadder argued that the delayed diagnosis resulted in irreparable and permanent damage to her left arm, rendering it “deformed and useless.”
Samadder and her husband filed a complaint against the hospital Sept. 23, 2021, asserting claims of medical negligence and loss of consortium and seeking judgment for damages in excess of $1 million, attorneys’ fees, costs and any other equitable relief the court deemed appropriate.
After their motion for judgement on the pleadings was denied by the court, attorneys for the hospital filed a motion for summary judgment on Sept. 15, 2023, arguing that it is entitled to qualified civil immunity under the federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, or Am.Sub.H.B. No. 606.
Samadder responded that the hospital is not entitled to immunity because nothing about her diagnosis or the pandemic would have prevented the exercise of the standard of care — completing both procedures simultaneously.
The Court of Claims granted the hospital’s motion for summary judgment Nov. 29, 2023, summary detailed.
The trial court determined that the health-care services provided to Samadder were a result of or in response to the state of emergency due to COVID-19 and therefore fall within the qualified civil immunity provision of Am.Sub.H.B. No. 606.
Additionally, the Court of Claims held that Samadder failed to demonstrate that the hospital’s actions constituted a reckless disregard or willful or wanton misconduct, providing an exception to immunity under the federal legislation.
Samadder appealed the matter to the Tenth District court.
The 3-0 panel noted that Ohio is a “notice-pleading state” and that the plaintiff need not prove his or her case at the pleading stage.
“Requiring a plaintiff to affirmatively demonstrate an exception to immunity at this stage would be tantamount to requiring the plaintiff to overcome a motion for summary judgment at the pleading stage,” Tenth District appellate Judge Kristin Boggs wrote. “Instead, a plaintiff must merely allege a set of facts that, if proven, would plausibly allow for recovery.”
Boggs wrote that the trial court’s consideration was not whether Samadder pleaded allegations to disprove the hospital’s immunity under the federal law. Rather, it should have considered whether the evidence presented to the court established the hospital’s entitlement to immunity.