Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
Surber v. Keating
No. C-980253 (Ohio Ct. App. filed June 1, 1998). ; Clearinghouse Number: 52264
Description
Low-income Patients Appeal Trial Court Decision Allowing Privatization of County Hospital
Abstract
Plaintiff-appellants—low-income patients who have chronic
medical conditions and rely on a university hospital as an
important source of treatment—appealed a trial court decision
that city charter did not prohibit the transfer of hospital
ownership from the county to a private nonprofit organization and
that plaintiffs therefore lacked standing. The university hospital
is the largest provider of care to the medically indigent in the
county where the hospital is located. When this action was filed,
the hospital received nearly $30 million a year from a county tax
levy to provide free and low-cost care to county low-income
residents. City of Cincinnati owned the hospital but transferred
management to a state university, which later transferred its
interest to a private nonprofit organization to cut costs and to
reorganize. Plaintiffs alleged that the transfer violated the city
charter and ordinances and the state law requirement that any
transfer under the law be for the public purpose of better
providing for the health and welfare of the people of the state.
Plaintiffs alleged that the transfer constituted a breach of the
public trust. They argued that removing the university hospital
oversight and control directly affected their access to health care
because there was no assurance that they would be able to obtain
services at the hospital. They argued that city’s charter
allowed the city council to transfer only limited amounts of
control and that privatization eliminated public accountability in
that it handed over all of the council’s duties.
