No. 2001-04417.Court of Claims of Ohio.
October 29, 2002.
{¶ 1} On December 5, 2001, the magistrate held an evidentiary hearing in this case to determine whether Ruth Sitler, Ph.D., is entitled to civil immunity pursuant to R.C. 2743.02(F) and 9.86. On June 13, 2002, the magistrate issued a decision wherein the magistrate found that Dr. Sitler acted within the scope of her employment with defendant at all times relevant hereto. Additionally, the magistrate determined that Dr. Sitler did not act with malicious purpose, in bad faith, or in a wanton or reckless manner. Accordingly, the magistrate recommended that Dr. Sitler be granted civil immunity pursuant to R.C. 9.86 and 2743.02(F).
{¶ 2} On June 20, 2002, plaintiff filed a request for findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Civ.R. 52 and 53(E)(2). On July 3, 2002, the parties filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. On August 29, 2002, the magistrate issued findings of fact an conclusions of law.
{¶ 3} Civ.R. 53 states: “Within 14 days of the filing of a magistrate’s decision, a party may file written objections to the magistrate’s decision.” Plaintiff timely filed his objections.
{¶ 4} Upon review of the magistrate’s decision and an independent analysis of the record, the court adopts the magistrate’s decision and recommendation as its own, including the magistrate’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. Plaintiff’s objections are hereby OVERRULED. In accordance with the magistrate’s recommendation, Dr. Sitler is entitled to civil immunity pursuant to R.C. 9.86 and 2743.02(F). Therefore, the courts of common pleas do not have jurisdiction over civil actions against her based upon the allegations in this case.
J. WARREN BETTIS, Judge
Attorneys for Plaintiff, David J. Kovach, Louis J. Licata.
Larry Y. Chan, Assistant Attorneys General Eric A. Walker.