Doe v. State Med. Bd. of Ohio
| Decision Date | 04 March 2022 |
| Docket Number | 2022-00077JD |
| Citation | 2022 Ohio 1600 |
| Parties | JANE DOE, M.D. Plaintiff v. STATE MEDICAL BOARD OF OHIO Defendant |
| Court | Ohio Court of Claims |
Sent to S.C. Reporter 5/12/22
JUDGMENT ENTRY
{¶1} Before the Court is plaintiffs February 8, 2022 motion for a preliminary injunction. Initially, the Court GRANTS plaintiffs February 25, 2022 motion to exceed page limitations. Previously, the Court granted plaintiffs motion for a temporary restraining order. Plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction prohibiting defendant from "issuing a Notice of Opportunity for Hearing to Plaintiff and divulging the identity of plaintiff as it is protected under federal law." Both parties have filed briefs in support of their respective positions including affidavits and attachments. The court conducted an oral hearing on plaintiffs motion on February 28, 2022 and March 3, 2022. As evidence, in addition to the affidavits and exhibits the parties submitted, Attorney Tom McMahon testified at the hearing. Having reviewed the evidence and considered the arguments of the parties, the court DENIES plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction.
{¶2} Under Ohio law, a party requesting preliminary injunctive relief must show that: "'(1) there is a substantial likelihood that the plaintiff will prevail on the merits, (2) the plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted, (3) no third parties will be unjustifiably harmed if the injunction is granted, and (4) the public interest will be served by the injunction.'" Escape Ents., Ltd. v. Gosh Ents Inc., 10th Dist. Franklin Nos. 04AP-834 & 04AP-857 2005-Ohio-2637, ¶ 22, quoting Proctor & Gamble Co. v. Stoneham, 140 Ohio App.3d 260, 267 (1st Dist.2000). Further, "the right to an injunction must be clear and the proof thereof clear and convincing, and the right established by the strength of plaintiffs' own case rather than by any weakness of that of his adversary." Escape Ents. Ltd. at ¶ 22, quoting White v. Long, 12 Ohio App.2d 136, 140, 231 N.E.2d 337 (12th Dist.1967). The court addresses each element below.
Plaintiff failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits.
{¶3} Before discussing this element relative to plaintiffs request for a preliminary injunction, it is important to note the limits on this court's jurisdiction. In addition to seeking injunctive relief, plaintiff's complaint asserts claims for declaratory judgment and abuse of process. As stated in Modern Office Methods, Inc. v. Ohio State Univ., 10th Dist. No. 11AP-1012, 2012-Ohio-3587, ¶ 10:
"The Court of Claims is a court of limited jurisdiction." Windsor House, Inc. v. Ohio Dept. of Job and Family Servs., 10th Dist. No. 11AP-367, 2011-Ohio-6459, ¶ 15. The Court of Claims has exclusive jurisdiction over civil actions against the state for money damages sounding in law. R.C. 2743.02 and 2743.03; see also Windsor House at ¶ 15. "R.C. 2743.03(A)(2) provides that when a claim for a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, or other equitable relief against the state arises out of the same circumstances giving rise to a civil action over which the Court of Claims otherwise would have jurisdiction, the Court of Claims has exclusive, original jurisdiction to hear and determine that claim." Interim Healthcare of Columbus, Inc. v. Ohio Dept. of Admin. Servs., 10th Dist. No. 07AP-747, 2008-Ohio-2286, ¶ 13, citing Friedman v. Johnson, 18 Ohio St.3d 85, 87, 18 Ohio B. 122, 480 N.E.2d 82 (1985).
However, in the absence of a "proper claim for damages," this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to hear claims for equitable relief. Id. at ¶ 11; 28.
{¶4} Thus, as it relates to the present motion, the Court finds that consideration of plaintiff's likelihood of success on her abuse of process claim must be considered first because, in the absence of this claim, the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the remainder of plaintiff's complaint. The elements of an abuse of process claim "are: (1) a legal proceeding has been set in motion in proper form and with probable cause, (2) the proceeding has been perverted to attempt to accomplish an ulterior purpose for which it was not designed, and (3) direct damage has resulted from the wrongful use of process." Cantrell v. Deitz, 10th Dist. No. 12AP-357, 2013-Ohio-1204, ¶ 15.
{¶5} In this case, the Court finds plaintiff has failed to demonstrate she is likely to succeed on her abuse of process claim because plaintiff failed to provide any evidence, let alone clear and convincing evidence, regarding the second element. In fact, notwithstanding plaintiffs disagreement with the necessity and timing of the board's actions, there is simply no evidence that defendant is attempting to "accomplish an ulterior purpose" in issuing its notice or in otherwise engaging in its statutory duty to regulate the practice of medicine in Ohio. On the contrary, Ms. Pokorny's affidavit establishes that defendant initiated an investigation, as it is authorized to do, after receiving a letter from the Department of Veterans Affairs, regarding concerns with plaintiffs professional conduct. Defendant has authority to regulate physicians licensed in Ohio and neither its decision to move forward as to plaintiff or its lack of explanation to plaintiff regarding its actions establish that it is attempting to accomplish an ulterior purpose. Lacking evidence on this element of her abuse of process claim, the court simply cannot find that she is likely to succeed on such a claim.
{¶6} The foregoing should not be taken to imply that plaintiff has met the first element of the claim of abuse of process. Because plaintiffs argument for an abuse of process claim is completely lacking as to the second element, this Court need not address the arguments as to the first element.
{¶7} Further, as noted above, given this court's limited jurisdiction, if plaintiff is unlikely to prevail on her abuse of process claim, she cannot prevail on her declaratory judgment claim, at least before this Court, because subject-matter jurisdiction is lacking and the claim would have to be dismissed. Thus, whether she can succeed on the merits of her declaratory judgment claim is not relevant in the absence of a viable claim for damages. Moreover, the Court would note that, in Krawcheck v. State Medical Board of Ohio, Ct of Cl. No. 2019-01195, it previously rejected similar arguments to those asserted by plaintiff here. This Court has reviewed plaintiffs arguments against the Krawcheck decision, and does not find them to have merit. Had plaintiff not held a license to practice medicine in Ohio, and without that license proceeded to practice at a VA hospital, then the statute cited by plaintiff would apply, and defendant would have no authority over her. However, the fact of her Ohio license gives defendant the statutory authority to proceed.[1]
{¶8} For these reasons, the court finds plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits.
Plaintiff failed to establish that she will suffer irreparable injury
{¶9} As stated in Ohio Democratic Party v. LaRose, 10th Dist. No. 20AP-421 and 20AP-428, irreparable harm requires an injury for which "there could be no plain, adequate, and complete remedy at law, and for which restitution in [money] would be impossible, difficult, or incomplete." The Court first notes that, despite extensive discussion regarding the National Practitioners...
To continue reading
Request your trial