Sharp v. Cleveland Clinic

176 Ohio App. 3d 226, 891 N.E.2d 809 (2008)

From our private database of 47,000+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Sharp v. Cleveland Clinic

Ohio Court of Appeals
176 Ohio App. 3d 226, 891 N.E.2d 809 (2008)

Facts

Brianna Sharp (plaintiff) was a nurse at the Cleveland Clinic (the clinic) (defendant). Over two months, Sharp withdrew more narcotic medications than she administered. Her manager called a meeting to express concerns about these discrepancies and possible controlled-substance use. Sharp acted nervous but consented to drug testing. Her manager walked her to the clinic’s emergency room, where test samples were taken. Sharp then asked to go home and was told she was free to leave. However, because of concerns about whether Sharp had narcotics in her system, she was told she could not drive her personal car or she would be arrested. Sharp called her boyfriend to pick her up. While Sharp waited in the emergency room’s lobby, clinic nurses observed her. Sharp asked to retrieve a garage-door opener and dirty dishes from her car. Concerned that she might use this request to get to her car and drive, the nurse contacted clinic law enforcement to escort Sharp. A female officer asked Sharp and the nurse to get into the officer’s car and drove them through the parking garage to Sharp’s parked vehicle. Back in the emergency-room waiting area, officers remained nearby. Sharp asked to smoke. An officer told her she had to stay within a certain area to smoke, and a clinic nurse accompanied her. When Sharp’s boyfriend arrived, she left with him. Sharp’s drug tests were negative. The clinic terminated Sharp for performance issues. Sharp sued the clinic in Ohio state court. Among other claims, she alleged that the clinic and its officers had committed the tort of false imprisonment by confining her in the emergency-room lobby and in the police car during the trip to her vehicle. The trial court found the evidence could not reasonably support a valid false-imprisonment claim and granted summary judgment to the clinic. Sharp appealed to the Ohio Court of Appeals.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Cannon, J.)

Dissent (O’Toole, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 899,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 47,000 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership