The Ohio Court of Appeals recently ruled on a significant employment dispute involving Adena Health System and three of its former physicians. The case, Adena Health Sys. v. Cohen, was decided on July 8, 2026, and centers around allegations of wrongful termination and breaches of contract. This decision affects not only the parties involved but also sets important precedents regarding employment agreements in the healthcare sector.
Adena Health System and its subsidiary, Adena Medical Group, LLC, employed Doctors Brian S. Cohen, J. Troy Thompson, and Aaron Roberts. The doctors submitted their resignations with a 120-day notice, as stipulated in their employment agreements. However, Adena terminated their employment shortly after receiving their resignations, leading to a legal battle over the circumstances surrounding their dismissal.
The dispute escalated when Adena filed a lawsuit against the doctors, claiming breach of contract, breach of loyalty, tortious interference, trade secret violations, and civil conspiracy. In response, the doctors filed a counterclaim and a third-party complaint against Adena’s board members, alleging wrongful termination and defamation, among other claims. The case was brought before the Ohio Court of Appeals after the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Adena on several counts.
The court's ruling addressed multiple facets of the case. The judges, led by Judge Wilkin, affirmed some of the trial court's decisions while reversing others. The court found that the doctors were not at-will employees, which allowed them to argue wrongful termination based on public policy violations. The court stated, "The trial court erred by granting Adena’s motion for partial summary judgment precluding the Doctors from pursuing their wrongful termination claim." This ruling indicates that the doctors may have valid claims based on their employment agreements.
In its decision, the court also addressed the doctors' claims regarding the non-compete clause in their employment contracts. The doctors argued that the clause was overly restrictive and caused them damages. However, the court upheld the trial court’s decision regarding the non-compete provision, finding that while the doctors could not seek damages for compliance with the clause, they could still challenge its enforceability.
The impact of this ruling is significant for both the parties involved and the broader healthcare industry. It clarifies the legal standing of employees under similar employment agreements, particularly in healthcare settings where non-compete clauses are common. The court's decision reinforces that employees cannot be terminated without cause if they have provided the required notice, which may encourage more physicians to assert their rights in similar situations.
Looking ahead, the case may still have further developments. The court remanded certain issues back to the trial court for further consideration, particularly regarding the doctors' claims of wrongful termination and the applicability of Adena's regulations. This means that the case is not entirely resolved, and further legal proceedings will likely follow.
Additionally, the possibility of an appeal remains. Adena Health System may choose to contest the appellate court's ruling, especially regarding the wrongful termination aspect. The outcome of this case could set important legal precedents for future employment disputes in the healthcare sector.