Skip to main content

Yu v. Ohio State Univ. Med. Ctr.

OHIOCTCLOctober 27, 2017No. 2015-00001Cited 1 time
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
McGrath
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
summary judgment

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Failure to Accommodate

Outcome

The court granted summary judgment in favor of OSUMC on the plaintiff's lack of informed consent claim, finding that such claims lie against the physician (an independent contractor), not the hospital, pursuant to Ohio law. The court also dismissed the negligence claim for failure to establish duty.

Excerpt

Summary judgment Civ.R. 56 lack of informed consent negligence. The court found that Dr. Emlich was not an employee of OSUMC, and that pursuant to R.C. 2317.54, plaintiff could not prevail on a claim of lack of informed consent against OSUMC as a matter of law. Further, plaintiff provided no evidence from which to infer that OSUMC breached any duty to plaintiff with respect to telephonic interpreter services provided to plaintiff. Defendant OSUMC's motion for summary judgment was granted.

What This Ruling Means

# Case Summary: Yu v. Ohio State University Medical Center **What Happened** A patient filed a lawsuit against Ohio State University Medical Center, claiming the hospital failed to properly inform them about medical treatment and did not provide adequate interpreter services despite language barriers. The patient also alleged the hospital was negligent in its care. **What the Court Decided** The court sided with the hospital and dismissed the case. The judge found that the doctor involved was an independent contractor, not a hospital employee, so the patient would need to sue the doctor directly for informed consent issues—not the hospital. Additionally, the court determined the patient had not provided sufficient evidence that the hospital breached any duty regarding interpreter services. **Why This Matters for Workers** This ruling clarifies that hospitals may not be directly responsible for certain medical decisions made by independent contractor doctors. However, the decision does not eliminate hospital responsibilities entirely. It underscores the importance of understanding who actually employs your healthcare provider and the limits of hospital liability for communication and accommodation services.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Similar Rulings

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. St. Francis Xavier Parochial School and St. Francis Xavier Church
D.C. CircuitJul 1997
Remanded
People in re S.L. and A.L
COLOCTAPPDec 2017

The Rio Blanco County Department of Human Services (Department) became involved with the parents in this case as a result of concerns about the children's welfare due to the condition of the family home, the parents' use of methamphetamine, and criminal cases involving the parents. Attempts at voluntary services failed, and on the Department's petition for dependency and neglect, the district court ultimately terminated the parents' rights. On appeal, the parents contended that the Department failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify them with their children. Specifically, the parents contended that the Department did not give them sufficient time to complete the services under their treatment plans and failed to accommodate their drug testing needs. The termination hearing was not held until more than a year after the motion to terminate was filed. For nine months before the motion to terminate was filed, the Department provided numerous services to the parents, including substance abuse therapy, therapeutic visitation supervision, drug abuse monitoring, and a parental capacity evaluation. The Department also provided counseling for the children. Both parents missed drug tests and tested positive during the testing period, and both were arrested for possession of methamphetamine during the pendency of the case. The Department made reasonable accommodations to meet the parents' needs and the parents had sufficient time to comply with their treatment plans. The record supports the trial court's findings that termination was appropriate because (1) the court-approved appropriate treatment plan had not been complied with by the parents or had not been successful in rehabilitating them (2) the parents were unfit and (3) the conduct or condition of the parents was unlikely to change within a reasonable time. Father also contended that the trial court's decision to interview the 9-year-old twin children together in chambers fundamentally and seriously affected the basi

Defendant Win
Shelley Savage v. Glendale Union High School, District No. 205, Maricopa County
9th CircuitSep 2003
Plaintiff Win
James Chappel v. Laboratory Corporation of America, AKA National Health Lab
9th CircuitNov 2000
Mixed Result
Wright
10th CircuitAug 2001
Defendant Win

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.