# Robert Hall v. Medical College of Ohio at Toledo

> Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · August 28, 1984 · 742 F.2d 299

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9472546

## Case

- **Full name:** Robert HALL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MEDICAL COLLEGE OF OHIO AT TOLEDO, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- **Decided:** August 28, 1984
- **Citations:** 742 F.2d 299; 19 Educ. L. Rep. 917; 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 19125
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Merritt
- **Judges:** Merritt, Krupansky, Weick
- **Cited by:** 159 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Abrogated by Hess v. Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corporation, 513 U.S. 30 (1994).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9472546

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that medical school was an arm of the state and thus immune from lawsuits even though trustees were empowered to “do all things necessary for the creation, proper maintenance, and successful and continuous operation of the college” including to “make and enter into all…
- concluding that right to counsel at disciplinary hearing was not a "clearly established” right but noting that "[w]e do not, however, speak to the issue of whether such a right should exist in this kind of disciplinary proceeding”
- finding that Ohio’s “state colleges and universities” form “an arm of the state entitled to immunity in federal court” under § 1983 as opposed to “political subdivision^] of the state”
- stating that "[a]n accused individual is generally not entitled to a statement of reasons for a decision against them, at least where the reasons for the decision are obvious"
- noting that Ohio legislature is required to support Medical College of Ohio " 'by such sums and in such manner as it may provide, but "[s]upport may also come from other sources" ' " (quoting Ohio Rev.Code Ann. Sec. 350.05)

## Opinion text

MERRITT, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I disagree with the Court’s treatment of the eleventh amendment issue. Much of the income of the college and hospital comes from patient fees and tuition, not from the state. No funds of the college and hospital are placed in the state treasury. The state maintains an independent system of payment and accounting. The college and hospital are empowered to enter into contracts without prior approval of the state, and they do not take title to property in the name of the state. They are controlled entirely by a governing *311 board and administrative officials with no significant intervention by the Governor or by state departments controlled by the Governor. The college and hospital are not institutions accountable to the voters, as are the legislature and the Governor and his executive departments. The college and hospital are not, in the words of the eleventh amendment, “one of the United States,” and I can see no valid reason for excepting yet another public institution from the discipline and control of the law by granting it a complete immunity and an unreviewable discretion. The Supreme Court has recently given a narrow interpretation to the definition of state agency, see Lake Country Estates, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 440 U.S. 391 , 99 S.Ct. 1171 , 59 L.Ed.2d 401 (1979), and I believe our Court is giving an overly broad scope to the eleventh amendment immunity.
I do not find that the issue concerning the student’s right of counsel in the disciplinary proceeding has been raised or argued on appeal. Neither the appellant's brief nor the appellee’s responsive brief mentions any issue concerning right to counsel in the disciplinary preceeding. The Court’s discussion of this issue, therefore, is unnecessary, and I would not reach the issue.
In addition, I am unable to conclude on the basis of the record before us that the student should lose his case on the merits in the absence of any discussion of the issue in the briefs or at oral argument, or any decision by the Court below.
I accept the District Court’s findings and conclusions regarding the good faith of the individual defendants and agree that they should be accorded a qualified immunity from liability. This qualified immunity, however, does not operate to shield them from injunctive relief for reinstatement. Therefore, the case should go back to the District Court for further proceedings against the individual defendants in respect to plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief for reinstatement and against the college and hospital unshielded by an Eleventh Amendment immunity.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9472546. Public record. Not legal advice.