2021 Ohio 726
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Five former patients underwent spinal surgeries by Dr. Abubakar Durrani from April 2007 to April 2009 and later alleged those surgeries were medically unnecessary as part of a broader fraudulent scheme.
- Plaintiffs sued The Christ Hospital (TCH) for negligent credentialing, supervision, retention, and related fraud—claiming TCH knew of complaints about Durrani but retained his privileges to protect revenue.
- Young filed in May 2015; Couch, Green, Simmons, and Cook filed in December 2018. All actions were filed more than four years after the surgeries.
- TCH moved to dismiss under Ohio’s four‑year medical‑malpractice statute of repose (R.C. 2305.113(C)); the trial court granted dismissal with prejudice.
- The appeals were consolidated; the court reviewed de novo and reaffirmed that the claims are barred by the four‑year statute of repose.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether negligent‑credentialing claims against a hospital are "medical claims" within R.C. 2305.113 | Credentialing claims are independent nonmedical claims; "caregiver" does not include physicians | Negligent‑credentialing claims fall within the statute as "medical claims" and "caregiver" includes physicians | Followed prior precedent (Young et al.): negligent‑credentialing claims are "medical claims" and are barred by the four‑year repose |
| Whether a fraud or equitable‑estoppel exception can avoid the statute of repose | Fraud/equitable estoppel should allow tolling or an exception for concealed, ongoing fraudulent schemes | No judicially created exceptions; the statute is an unambiguous legislative repose and must be applied as written | Refused to create fraud/equitable‑estoppel exceptions; affirmed Freeman and applied the repose strictly |
| Whether the plaintiffs' fraud claims are independent (nonmedical) claims | Fraud claims are distinct from medical malpractice and thus not subject to the medical repose | Fraud arising from medical treatment is a "medical claim" within R.C. 2305.113 | Fraud allegations tied to physician treatment are "medical claims" and are barred by the four‑year repose |
Key Cases Cited
- Young v. Durrani, 61 N.E.3d 34 (2016) (held negligent‑credentialing claims are "medical claims" under revised statute)
- Crissinger v. Christ Hosp., 106 N.E.3d 798 (2017) (reaffirmed Young; negligent credentialing barred by repose)
- McNeal v. Durrani, 138 N.E.3d 1231 (2019) (followed Young; negligent credentialing subject to statute of repose)
- Freeman v. Durrani, 144 N.E.3d 1067 (2019) (declined to recognize fraud or equitable‑estoppel exceptions to the medical repose)
- Browning v. Burt, 613 N.E.2d 993 (Ohio 1993) (distinguished negligent credentialing from physician malpractice under the former statute)
- State ex rel. Ohio Trial Lawyers v. Sheward, 715 N.E.2d 1062 (1999) (invalidated earlier legislative attempt to redefine "medical claim" on procedural grounds)
- Antoon v. Cleveland Clinic Found., 71 N.E.3d 974 (2016) (confirmed R.C. 2305.113(C) is a true statute of repose)
- Berdyck v. Shinde, 613 N.E.2d 1014 (1993) (noted diagnosis/treatment are functions limited to licensed physicians)