Antoon v. Cleveland Clinic Found. (Slip Opinion)
148 Ohio St. 3d 483
| Ohio | 2016Background
- In 2008 David Antoon underwent prostate surgery at the Cleveland Clinic; complications and follow-up care continued through December 2008.
- Antoon timely notified the Clinic of intended malpractice claims in December 2009 and filed a state-court malpractice complaint in June 2010; that complaint was dismissed without prejudice in June 2011.
- The Antoons filed a qui tam action in federal court in January 2012 (not alleging malpractice or seeking damages); they later sought to amend to add state malpractice claims but the district court denied leave and dismissed the federal case.
- After the federal dismissal the Antoons filed a second state-court malpractice complaint in November 2013, more than four years after the alleged malpractice occurrence in January 2008.
- The Clinic moved to dismiss arguing Ohio’s four-year medical-malpractice statute of repose (R.C. 2305.113(C)) barred the suit; the trial court granted dismissal, the court of appeals reversed, and the Ohio Supreme Court accepted review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does R.C. 2305.113(C) (four-year medical-malpractice rule) apply to vested claims? | The Antoons: once a malpractice claim vests, the statute of repose cannot extinguish the vested right; timeliness governed by limitations and tolling. | Clinic: R.C. 2305.113(C) is a true statute of repose that bars any action not commenced within four years of the act/omission, vested or not. | The court held R.C. 2305.113(C) is a true statute of repose that applies to both vested and nonvested claims. |
| Does dismissal of an earlier state suit (without prejudice) preserve the repose period by ‘commencing’ the action? | The Antoons: earlier filings and dismissals (and related federal filings) preserved or tolled the period. | Clinic: a dismissal without prejudice leaves no pending action; the repose period is not suspended by prior dismissed filings. | The court held a dismissal without prejudice means the action is treated as never commenced for repose purposes; the November 2013 filing was too late. |
| Can Ohio’s saving statute (R.C. 2305.19) preserve the malpractice claim here? | The Antoons: the subsequent federal filing and litigation preserved their state claim under the savings statute. | Clinic: the qui tam/federal pleadings were not substantially similar and did not allege malpractice, so the saving statute does not apply. | The court found R.C. 2305.19 inapplicable because the federal pleadings were not substantially the same as the original state malpractice claim. |
| Does federal tolling under 28 U.S.C. §1367(d) apply here to toll the statute of repose? | The Antoons: §1367(d) tolls state limitations for claims asserted in federal court, preserving time to refile after federal dismissal. | Clinic: §1367(d) applies only where the federal court exercised supplemental jurisdiction and the state claims were actually pending in federal court; here the district court declined supplemental jurisdiction and malpractice claims were never pending. | The court held §1367(d) did not apply because the federal court never had the malpractice claims pending; it declined to decide broader questions about tolling statutes vs. repose. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ruther v. Kaiser, 134 Ohio St.3d 408, 983 N.E.2d 291 (Ohio 2012) (held R.C. 2305.113(C) is a statute of repose and discussed constitutionality in context of unvested claims)
- Groch v. Gen. Motors Corp., 117 Ohio St.3d 192, 883 N.E.2d 377 (Ohio 2008) (upheld certain statutes of repose and explained constitutional analysis)
- CTS Corp. v. Waldburger, 134 S. Ct. 2175 (U.S. 2014) (explains difference between statutes of limitation and statutes of repose and recognizes repose as legislative policy judgment)
- Bell v. Morrison, 26 U.S. 351 (U.S. 1828) (early recognition of repose/limitations policy rationale)
- DeVille Photography, Inc. v. Bowers, 169 Ohio St. 267, 159 N.E.2d 443 (Ohio 1959) (a dismissed action without prejudice is treated as never having existed for purposes of commencement)