Crump v. Batie
2013 Ohio 2345
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Crump v. Batie is an Ohio medical-negligence action decided by the Clark County Court of Appeals in 2013.
- Plaintiffs initially filed suit in 2010, dismissed it without prejudice under Civ.R. 41(A)(1) on March 15, 2011, and refiled on March 16, 2012.
- Batie moved for summary judgment, arguing the action was time-barred by the statute of limitations and the saving statute.
- The trial court granted summary judgment, concluding no genuine issues existed and the action was time-barred.
- Crump moved for Civ.R. 60(B) relief from judgment; the trial court denied, and the appellate court addressed both the summary-judgment and relief-from-judgment issues.
- The court held that the action was untimely under the savings statute and accrual rules, and affirmed the trial court’s judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| whether the savings statute tolled Crump's refiled action | Crump argues the action could be saved by RC 2305.19 due to dismissal without prejudice. | Batie asserts the refiling occurred after the statute expired and savings statute does not apply to refiling under RC 2305.19. | Savings statute applied only to timely refiling, not to preserve untimely refiling |
| accrual and timing under medical-malpractice statute | Crump contends accrual and discovery dates should toll or shift the one-year period. | Batie argues accrual and discovery support a one-year limitation window that expired before 2012 refiling. | Court held accrual timing supports expiration prior to refiling; refiling after the period was improper |
| effect of Civ.R. 41(A)(1) dismissal on tolling | Dismissal without prejudice reset or extended the time to sue. | Dismissal without prejudice leaves parties as if no action had been brought, not tolling the limitations period. | Civ.R. 41(A)(1) dismissal without prejudice does not reset the limitations period for savings purposes |
| whether R.C. 2305.15 tolling applies to a refiling under RC 2305.19 | Crump argues tolling could apply due to absence from the state. | Batie argues R.C. 2305.15 does not apply to refiling under RC 2305.19. | R.C. 2305.15 does not toll a refiling under RC 2305.19 |
| propriety of relief-from-judgment ruling under Civ.R. 60(B) given direct appeal | Crump asserted error in the denial of Civ.R. 60(B) relief. | Defendant opposed relief; appellate rule generally divests trial court of jurisdiction absent remand. | Issue not resolved on direct appeal due to lack of remand; the summary-judgment ruling upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Schon v. National Tea Co., 19 Ohio App.2d 222 (7th Dist. 1969) (time computation in leap year)
- Saunders v. Choi, 12 Ohio St.3d 247 (1984) (savings statute applicability to refiling)
- Frysinger v. Leech, 32 Ohio St.3d 38 (1987) (accrual under medical claim; discovery rule)
- Lesher v. McDermott, 2003-Ohio-458 (2d Dist. Miami No. 02CA0025, 2003) (savings/statutory tolling rules)
- Wells Fargo Fin. Ohio 1 Mtge. Grp. v. Lieb, 113 Ohio App.3d 282 (1996) (jurisdiction and remand fundamentals relating to Civ.R. 60(B))
- Schon v. National Tea Co., 19 Ohio App.2d 222, 250 N.E.2d 890 (1969) (interpretation of time and year under statute)