BlogLine

Ohio Appellate Court ruling reinforces limits on hospital liability for medical malpractice 

2/26/25

By: LaShay L. Byrd and Kyle M. Virgin

On January 21, 2025, in Sullivan v. Mercy Health¹, the Twelfth Appellate District of Ohio reaffirmed that hospitals cannot be directly sued for medical malpractice. This case highlights the ongoing debate regarding the extent to which hospitals can be held accountable for the actions of medical staff and demonstrates the importance of proactive risk management strategies. 

Sullivan v. Mercy Health involved a patient, Michelle Sullivan, who suffered an allergic reaction after receiving Zofran in the Mercy Health Emergency Department. Sullivan sued Mercy Health, a physician’s assistant who ordered the Zofran, the supervising physician, and others, alleging that the administration of Zofran by hospital staff was done without the patient’s consent and constituted a deviation from the standard of care.   

A jury rendered a verdict in favor of the physician’s assistant and the supervising physician, finding that the physician’s assistant and physician did not commit malpractice because there was informed consent to administer the Zofran. Following this verdict, the trial court granted summary judgment to Mercy Health finding that the hospital could not be directly responsible for medical malpractice and could not be vicariously liable for malpractice after the only remaining named defendants that were agents of Mercy were found not liable.  

The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment and reiterated that “because only individuals practice medicine, only individuals can commit medical malpractice . . . [therefore,] ‘[a] hospital does not practice medicine and is incapable of committing malpractice.'”²  

This decision reinforces the long-standing legal principle that medical malpractice claims must be directed at individual practitioners rather than hospitals themselves. Nevertheless, it remains that hospitals can still be held vicariously liable under certain conditions and can be directly liable through other legal theories such as corporate negligence (failure to enforce adequate policies and procedures) or negligent credentialing (failure to properly vet and monitor the competence of medical staff).  

Though Sullivan v. Mercy Health aligns with established legal precedent, it raises important questions about the future of medical claims against medical institutions and serves as a reminder that the legal landscape surrounding medical liability continues to evolve. Moving forward, it can be expected that plaintiffs and legal advocates will likely explore alternative legal avenues to hold hospitals accountable for medical errors that result from systemic issues. By taking proactive steps like strengthening employment and contractor agreements, enhancing risk management policies, investing in patient safety initiatives, and focusing on corporate negligence defenses, hospitals can mitigate hospital liability in future litigation.  

For more information, please contact LaShay Byrd at lashay.byrd@fmglaw.com, Kyle Virgin at kyle.virgin@fmglaw.com or your local FMG attorney. 

1. Sullivan v. Mercy Health | 2025-Ohio-137 | 12th Appellate District | Decided: Jan 21, 2025. ↩︎
2. Id. Quoting Wuerth, 2009-Ohio-3601, and Clawson, 2022-Ohio-4154. ↩︎