Doe v. State Med. Bd. of Ohio, 2022-00077JD

CourtCourt of Claims of Ohio
Writing for the CourtPATRICK E. SHEERAN Judge
Citation2022 Ohio 1600
PartiesJANE DOE, M.D. Plaintiff v. STATE MEDICAL BOARD OF OHIO Defendant
Docket Number2022-00077JD
Decision Date04 March 2022

2022-Ohio-1600

JANE DOE, M.D. Plaintiff
v.

STATE MEDICAL BOARD OF OHIO Defendant

No. 2022-00077JD

Court of Claims of Ohio

March 4, 2022


Sent to S.C. Reporter 5/12/22

JUDGMENT ENTRY

PATRICK E. SHEERAN Judge

{¶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."

1

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

2

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...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT