Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 109 - Ohio Revised Code | Ohio Laws
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 109.36 (2026)

Defense of officers and employees definitions

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
September 29, 2013
Latest Legislation:
House Bill 59 - 130th General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

As used in this section and sections 109.361 to 109.366 of the Revised Code:

(A)(1) "Officer or employee" means any of the following:

(a) A person who, at the time a cause of action against the person arises, is serving in an elected or appointed office or position with the state or is employed by the state.

(b) A person that, at the time a cause of action against the person, partnership, or corporation arises, is rendering medical, nursing, dental, podiatric, optometric, physical therapeutic, psychiatric, or psychological services pursuant to a personal services contract or purchased service contract with a department, agency, or institution of the state.

(c) A person that, at the time a cause of action against the person, partnership, or corporation arises, is rendering peer review, utilization review, or drug utilization review services in relation to medical, nursing, dental, podiatric, optometric, physical therapeutic, psychiatric, or psychological services pursuant to a personal services contract or purchased service contract with a department, agency, or institution of the state.

(d) A person who, at the time a cause of action against the person arises, is rendering medical, nursing, dental, podiatric, optometric, physical therapeutic, psychiatric, or psychological services to patients in a state institution operated by the department of mental health and addiction services pursuant to an agreement with the department.

(2) "Officer or employee" does not include any person elected, appointed, or employed by any political subdivision of the state.

(B) "State" means the state of Ohio, including but not limited to, the general assembly, the supreme court, courts of appeals, the offices of all elected state officers, and all departments, boards, offices, commissions, agencies, institutions, and other instrumentalities of the state of Ohio. "State" does not include political subdivisions.

(C) "Political subdivisions" of the state means municipal corporations, townships, counties, school districts, and all other bodies corporate and politic responsible for governmental activities only in geographical areas smaller than that of the state.

(D) "Employer" means the general assembly, the supreme court, courts of appeals, any office of an elected state officer, or any department, board, office, commission, agency, institution, or other instrumentality of the state of Ohio that employs or contracts with an officer or employee or to which an officer or employee is elected or appointed.

Last updated October 22, 2025 at 1:57 PM

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 118 cases (12 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case: Smith v. Ohio State Univ. Hospitals, 674 N.E.2d 721 (Ohio Ct. App. 1996).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Smith v. Ohio State Univ. Hospitals, 674 N.E.2d 721 (Ohio Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 26× “was acting as an ‘employee’ of the state, as defined by R.C. 109.36 while performing surgery on Claude E.”
Nichols v. Villarreal, 680 N.E.2d 1259 (Ohio Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 23× “R.C. 109.36 defines a ‘state officer’ or ‘employee’ as: “ ‘[A]ny person who, at the time a cause of action against him arises, is serving in an elected or appointed office or position with the state; is employed by the state; or is rendering medical, nursing, dental, podiatric,…”
Conley v. Shearer, 595 N.E.2d 862 (Ohio 1992). · cites it 4× ““Except in the case of a civil action filed by the state, filing a civil action in the court of claims results in a complete waiver of any cause of action, based on the same act or omission, which the filing party has against any officer or employee, as defined in section 109.”
State ex rel. Sanquily v. Court of Common Pleas, 573 N.E.2d 606 (Ohio 1991). · cites it 5× “02(F) provides in pertinent part: “A civil action against an officer or employee, as defined in section 109.36 of the Revised Code, that alleges that the officer’s or employee’s conduct was manifestly outside the scope of his employment or official responsibilities, or that the…”
Engel v. Univ. of Toledo Coll. of Med., 2011 Ohio 3375 (Ohio 2011). · cites it 6× “” {¶ 8} This court has rarely had the opportunity to examine subsection (a) of R.C. 109.36. In State ex rel Sanquily v. Lucas Cty.”
State ex rel. Sawicki v. Court of Common Pleas of Lucas Cty., 2010 Ohio 3299 (Ohio 2010). · cites it 4× “02(F) provides: {¶ 14} “A civil action against an officer or employee, as defined in section 109.36 of the Revised Code, that alleges that the officer’s or employee’s conduct was manifestly outside the scope of the officer’s or employee’s employment or official responsibilities,…”
Poe v. Univ. of Cincinnati, 2013 Ohio 5451 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 9× “02(F) AND R.C. 109.36. UC appeals, assigning the following error: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT GRANTED IMMUNITY TO APPELLEE DR.”
Conley v. Shearer, 1992 Ohio 133 (Ohio 1992). · cites it 4× “"Except in the case of a civil action filed by the state, filing a civil action in the court of claims results in a complete waiver of any cause of action, based on the same act or omission, which the filing party has against any officer or employee, as defined in section 109.”
Gharibshahi v. State, 2014 Ohio 1529 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 28× “Artman was not a state officer or employee under R.C. 109.36, and, thus, not entitled to immunity under R.”
Elliott v. Ohio Dep't of Rehab. & Corr., 637 N.E.2d 106 (Ohio Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 4× “* * * “Except in the case of a civil action filed by the state, filing a civil action in the court of claims results in a complete waiver of any cause of action, based on the same act or omission, which the filing party has against any officer or employee, as defined in section…”
Cullen v. Ohio Dep't of Rehab., 709 N.E.2d 583 (Ohio Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 11× “Pursuant to R.C. 109.36, the common pleas court had decided that appellant was a state employee or officer entitled to representation under R.”
Siegel v. Univ. of Cincinnati Coll. of Med., 2015 Ohio 441 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 3× “02(F) requires that all challenges to state officer or employee immunity must be determined in the Court of Claims: A civil action against an officer or employee, as defined in section 109.36 of the Revised Code, that alleges that the officer's or employee's conduct was…”
Show all 118 citing cases →
— Ohio Rev. Code § 109.36(A) — 14 cases
Nichols v. Villarreal, 680 N.E.2d 1259 (Ohio Ct. App. 1996). “R.C. 109.36 defines a ‘state officer’ or ‘employee’ as: “ ‘[A]ny person who, at the time a cause of action against him arises, is serving in an elected or appointed office or position with the state; is employed by the state; or is rendering medical, nursing, dental, podiatric,…”
State ex rel. Sanquily v. Court of Common Pleas, 573 N.E.2d 606 (Ohio 1991). “02(F) provides in pertinent part: “A civil action against an officer or employee, as defined in section 109.36 of the Revised Code, that alleges that the officer’s or employee’s conduct was manifestly outside the scope of his employment or official responsibilities, or that the…”
Cullen v. Ohio Dep't of Rehab., 709 N.E.2d 583 (Ohio Ct. App. 1998). “Pursuant to R.C. 109.36, the common pleas court had decided that appellant was a state employee or officer entitled to representation under R.”
Walton v. Ohio Dep't of Health, 832 N.E.2d 790 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005).
Poe v. Univ. of Cincinnati, 2013 Ohio 5451 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). “02(F) AND R.C. 109.36. UC appeals, assigning the following error: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT GRANTED IMMUNITY TO APPELLEE DR.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 109.36(A)(1) — 6 cases
Theobald v. Univ. of Cincinnati, 857 N.E.2d 573 (Ohio 2006).
Thomas v. Ohio Dep't of Rehab. & Corr., 36 F. Supp. 2d 1005 (S.D. Ohio 1999).
Thomas v. Ohio Dep't of Rehab. & Corr., 36 F. Supp. 2d 997 (S.D. Ohio 1998).
Kuhbanani v. Ohio State Univ. Med. Ctr., 2013 Ohio 4855 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2013).
Turner v. Univ. of Cincinnati, 2018 Ohio 2287 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2018).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 109.36(A)(1)(a) — 17 cases
Engel v. Univ. of Toledo Coll. of Med., 2011 Ohio 3375 (Ohio 2011). “” {¶ 8} This court has rarely had the opportunity to examine subsection (a) of R.C. 109.36. In State ex rel Sanquily v. Lucas Cty.”
Poe v. Univ. of Cincinnati, 2013 Ohio 5451 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). “02(F) AND R.C. 109.36. UC appeals, assigning the following error: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT GRANTED IMMUNITY TO APPELLEE DR.”
Gharibshahi v. State, 2014 Ohio 1529 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). “Artman was not a state officer or employee under R.C. 109.36, and, thus, not entitled to immunity under R.”
Engel v. Univ. of Toledo Coll. of Med., 922 N.E.2d 244 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009).
Theobald v. Univ. of Cincinnati, 827 N.E.2d 365 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 109.36(A)(1)(b) — 5 cases
Gharibshahi v. State, 2014 Ohio 1529 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). “Artman was not a state officer or employee under R.C. 109.36, and, thus, not entitled to immunity under R.”
Marotto v. Ohio State Univ. Med. Ctr., 2014 Ohio 4549 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014).
Deane v. Quest Diagnostics LLC (S.D. Ohio 2020).
Phillips v. Ohio State Univ. Med. Ctr., 2012 Ohio 3893 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2012).
Garrett v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2010 Ohio 851 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2010).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 109.36(A)(b) — 1 case
Turner v. Univ. of Cincinnati, 2018 Ohio 2287 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2018).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 109.36(B) — 3 cases
Thomas v. Ohio Dep't of Rehab. & Corr., 36 F. Supp. 2d 997 (S.D. Ohio 1998).
Smith v. Ohio State Univ. Hospitals, 674 N.E.2d 721 (Ohio Ct. App. 1996). “was acting as an ‘employee’ of the state, as defined by R.C. 109.36 while performing surgery on Claude E.”
Walton v. Ohio Dep't of Health, 832 N.E.2d 790 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.