2022 Ohio 1266
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- Decedent underwent allegedly negligent medical treatment on November 4, 2013 and died April 4, 2014.
- Plaintiffs filed an original medical-malpractice/wrongful-death suit May 4, 2015 (after using the statutory 180‑day notice), then voluntarily dismissed it August 21, 2017.
- Plaintiffs refiled August 15, 2018 (within one year of dismissal) asserting medical‑negligence, loss of consortium, and wrongful‑death claims.
- Defendants moved to dismiss/for summary judgment arguing R.C. 2305.113(C)’s four‑year medical statute of repose barred the refiled claims; trial court initially denied relief but, after Wilson v. Durrani, granted summary judgment and dismissed the claims.
- On appeal the Sixth District affirmed that the medical‑malpractice and consortium claims are barred under Wilson but held the four‑year medical statute of repose does not apply to wrongful‑death claims premised on medical negligence; it reversed dismissal of the wrongful‑death claim and certified the conflict to the Ohio Supreme Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 2305.113(C)’s four‑year medical statute of repose bars a wrongful‑death action based on medical negligence that was originally filed timely, dismissed without prejudice, and refiled under the wrongful‑death saving statute within one year | Davis: wrongful‑death claims are distinct statutory actions governed by R.C. Chapter 2125 (and its saving clause R.C. 2125.04); because the wrongful‑death claim was timely filed originally and refiled within the wrongful‑death saving period, the medical repose should not bar it | Mercy: wrongful‑death claims that arise from medical diagnosis, care, or treatment are “medical claims” under R.C. 2305.113(E)(3) and thus subject to the four‑year repose; the saving statute does not override a statute of repose per Wilson | Sixth Dist.: reversed trial court as to wrongful‑death claim — the four‑year medical statute of repose in R.C. 2305.113(C) does not apply to wrongful‑death actions premised on medical negligence; certified conflict to Ohio Supreme Court |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilson v. Durrani, 173 N.E.3d 448 (Ohio 2020) (Ohio Supreme Court held the general saving statute does not extend or revive a medical claim after the medical four‑year statute of repose has expired)
- Antoon v. Cleveland Clinic Found., 71 N.E.3d 974 (Ohio 2016) (describes R.C. 2305.113(C) as a true statute of repose that bars any medical claim filed after four years)
- Klema v. St. Elizabeth’s Hosp., 166 N.E.2d 765 (Ohio 1960) (wrongful‑death actions are special statutory causes of action distinct from actions by the injured person)
- Frysinger v. Leech, 512 N.E.2d 337 (Ohio 1987) (saving statute relation‑back discussion for limitations purposes)
- Ruther v. Kaiser, 983 N.E.2d 291 (Ohio 2012) (policy reasons supporting statutes of repose for medical claims)
- Smith v. Wyandot Mem. Hosp., 114 N.E.3d 1224 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018) (held the medical four‑year statute of repose applies to wrongful‑death claims arising from medical care)
- Mercer v. Keane, 172 N.E.3d 1101 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021) (same: wrongful‑death claim converted from a medical claim was barred by the medical statute of repose)