CLEVELAND — As expected, former MetroHealth CEO Dr. Akram Boutros has refiled his wrongful termination lawsuit against his former employer after a report by the Ohio State Auditor earlier this month ruled that his authorization of bonus compensation to himself was "not criminal."
The refiled lawsuit accuses The MetroHealth System and its board of trustees of breach of contract, defamation, and "promissory estoppel." (explained in a release from Boutros' attorneys as "an unfulfilled promise enforceable by law.")
"Due to the MetroHealth Board's persistent failure to understand their own compensation policies and legal delegations of authority, we unfortunately have been forced to refile our lawsuit," Boutros said in a statement. "At the same time, I will continue to remember my 10 years at MetroHealth as the most gratifying of my career. I love the staff and patients and am honored to have served the residents of Cuyahoga County, particularly the most under-served ones."
Although the lawsuit does not ask for a specific amount in damages, Boutros' attorneys say the defendants in the case cost him "more than $8 million in earned compensation, severance and benefits." In addition, the attorneys for Boutros argue that he was denied "opportunities for prospective employment worth at least $20 million additional dollars."
"The anguish and suffering from the Defendants' groundless assault on his reputation has caused Dr. Boutros tens of millions more in damage," the suit charges.
You can read the entire lawsuit below.
THE BACKGROUND
Boutros, once hailed for his efforts to expand MetroHealth's services across Northeast Ohio, was unceremoniously fired in November of 2022 just weeks before his planned retirement. The hospital's board accused him of authorizing more than $1.9 million in bonus payments to himself without disclosing those transactions.
Though he later admitted to the bonuses and repaid the money, Boutros told 3News he believed they were in line with company policy and denied any wrongdoing. Instead, he called his dismissal a case of "pure retaliation," claiming he had acted as a "whistleblower" when the board spoke of candidates for his replacement outside of public meeting times.
Boutros wound up filing a number of lawsuits against Metro, seeking tens of millions in damages for things like breach of contract, defamation, wrongful termination, and civil liability for criminal acts related to retaliation and intimidation. While some of these claims were dismissed in court, the largest lawsuit as a whole remained active until Dec. 8, 2023, when Boutros' attorneys filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss the multi-million-dollar complaint due to "a serious health issue that requires intensive treatment, including week-long inpatient admissions every three weeks."
In the release announcing Boutros' refiling of the lawsuit, it was explained that the "serious health issue" was a cancer diagnosis.
A jury trial in the civil case had been slated to begin on Feb. 12 of this year. Boutros noted at the time of the dismissal that he planned to file the suit again "as soon as his treatment is completed."
THE AUDITOR'S REPORT
On Nov. 12, the Ohio State Auditor's report on Boutros' case was released.
A section of the auditor's report — titled "employment contract" — expanded upon the determination that Boutros committed no criminal acts with the following text:
"Dr. Boutros advised that he interpreted his contract to entitle him to receive all benefits received by senior executives, including the SPBVC (supplemental performance based variable compensation) benefits. These were not contractual rights but were benefits which he believed he was entitled to by virtue of the contract language without specifically advising the Board. MetroHealth has acknowledged that Dr. Boutros had the authority to provide these benefits to the senior executives. MetroHealth disputes that the contract language cited by Dr. Boutros covered the SPBVC benefits.
"However, in that contract law provides that any ambiguities in contract language is interpreted in favor of the party which did not draft the contract, we conclude that Dr. Boutros was not unreasonable in his interpretation of the contract language. As previously noted, the purpose of the special audit was to assist the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor’s Office in determining if criminal acts had been committed related to the bonus payments. Therefore, we do not need to determine whether the Board or Boutros is correct on the interpretation of this part of the contract. Instead, we need to determine if Boutros’ interpretation was not unreasonable.
"If his interpretation was not unreasonable then, even if he was incorrect, the State would be unable to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Dr. Boutros obtained these funds from MetroHealth either “without the consent of the owner” or 'by deception.' This means that we do not need to reach a conclusion as to which interpretation of this clause in the contract is legally correct. The manner in which the contract was drafted creates the ambiguity which makes Boutros' interpretation, and thus his actions, not unreasonable and, therefore, not criminal."
You can read the full auditor's report below:
"We felt very comfortable that I had done nothing wrong and am absolutely gratified that the auditor came to the same conclusion," Boutros told 3News' Russ Mitchell during a one-on-one interview after the report was issued. "Honestly, it's been a very difficult two years for me and my family."
3News' Tyler Carey and Ryan Haidet contributed to this report
