Crissinger v. Christ Hosp.
106 N.E.3d 798
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Eight consolidated appeals arising from dozens of lawsuits against Dr. Abubakar Durrani and hospitals that employed or credentialed him, alleging unnecessary/incorrect spinal surgeries, off‑label implants, fraud, and evidence spoliation.
- Several plaintiffs filed after R.C. 2305.113’s four‑year medical statute of repose; Judith Young challenged the statute’s constitutionality and peer‑review immunity, and the trial court ruled both unconstitutional in 2015.
- The trial court issued a December 15, 2015 general order applying its Young rulings to all pending Durrani cases and overruling outstanding motions to dismiss/for summary judgment.
- This court decided Young, reversing the trial court and holding the statute of repose constitutional; it limited review in related cases to issues intertwined with the statute’s application.
- In these appeals the court considered (a) whether particular claims qualified as "medical claims" under R.C. 2305.113 and (b) the constitutionality of the statute of repose; several plaintiffs later waived challenges to peer‑review immunity, mooting related appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the claims against hospitals/Dr. Durrani are "medical claims" under R.C. 2305.113 | Crissinger/Calligan argued some claims (battery, lack of informed consent, IIED, vicarious liability) were non‑medical and thus not time‑barred | Defendants argued the claims arose from medical diagnosis/care/treatment and thus are medical claims subject to the statute of repose | Court held negligence, negligent credentialing, fraud, battery, lack of informed consent, IIED, and vicarious liability are "medical claims"; spoliation claims are not |
| Whether R.C. 2305.113 (medical statute of repose) is unconstitutional (no fraud exception) | Plaintiffs asked the court to invalidate the statute or read in a fraud exception | Defendants urged the statute is constitutional as written and bars time‑barred medical claims | Court followed Young and Ohio Supreme Court precedent and held the statute constitutional; no judicially created fraud exception |
| Whether trial court erred by denying motions to dismiss / summary judgment based on statute of repose | Plaintiffs relied on trial court’s earlier Young‑based rulings | Defendants argued motions should have been granted because the claims were barred by the statute of repose | Court reversed the trial court to the extent it denied motions and remanded for dismissal of medical claims barred by R.C. 2305.113 |
| Justiciability of appeals challenging peer‑review immunity statutes (R.C. 2305.251/2305.252) | Plaintiffs originally challenged constitutionality but later waived that challenge | Defendants argued the issue was before the court | Court found plaintiffs withdrew constitutional challenges and the trial court modified its order; appeals on peer‑review immunity were moot and dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Young v. Durrani, 61 N.E.3d 34 (1st Dist. 2016) (limits scope of review to statute of repose and intertwined issues; held certain claims are medical claims)
- Ruther v. Kaiser, 983 N.E.2d 291 (Ohio 2012) (upheld constitutionality of medical statute of repose)
- Antoon v. Cleveland Clinic Found., 71 N.E.3d 974 (Ohio 2016) (reaffirmed constitutionality of R.C. 2305.113)
- Hulsmeyer v. Hospice of Southwest Ohio, Inc., 29 N.E.3d 903 (Ohio 2014) (legislature’s choices addressing repose exceptions inform judicial interpretation)
- Doe v. Marlington Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 907 N.E.2d 706 (Ohio 2009) (court will apply statute as written and will not judicially rewrite statutory omissions)
- Schlueter v. Cleveland Bd. of Ed., 230 N.E.2d 364 (C.P. 1960) (courts cannot supply omitted statutory provisions)