2022 Ohio 4190
Ohio2022Background
- In March 2010 Dr. Abubakar A. Durrani performed spinal surgery on Richard Elliot; Elliot suffered post-operative infection and severe weight loss and later sued claiming unnecessary surgery, negligence, and lack of informed consent.
- Durrani was criminally indicted in August 2013 and fled to Pakistan later in 2013; he has not returned to Ohio.
- Elliot filed a medical-malpractice complaint (refiling after an earlier filing to preserve limitations); the complaint was served on Durrani in Pakistan under the Hague Convention.
- Defendants moved to dismiss based on the four‑year medical‑claim statute of repose, R.C. 2305.113(C); the trial court granted dismissal in July 2018.
- The First District held R.C. 2305.15(A) (tolling for absconded defendants) tolls the medical‑claim statute of repose as to an absconded defendant (but not to non‑absconded co‑defendants); the Ohio Supreme Court granted review on the specific question whether R.C. 2305.15(A) tolls R.C. 2305.113(C).
- The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the First District: by its plain language R.C. 2305.15(A) tolls the medical‑claim statute of repose, so the repose period does not bar filing while the defendant is absconded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 2305.15(A) (absconding‑defendant tolling) tolls the medical‑claim statute of repose, R.C. 2305.113(C). | R.C. 2305.15(A) unambiguously tolls the "period of limitation" including the repose in R.C. 2305.113(C); the tolling statute explicitly governs the cross‑referenced sections. | "Period of limitation" targets statutes of limitations, not a statute of repose; R.C. 2305.113(C) contains the only express exceptions to repose (and Wilson requires exceptions to be express in the repose statute). | The Court held R.C. 2305.15(A) tolls R.C. 2305.113(C); the four‑year repose is tolled during the defendant's absence and does not bar suit while the defendant is absconded. |
| Whether prior decision in Wilson v. Durrani forecloses tolling by other statutes. | Wilson recognized repose is generally not tollable, but other statutes that clearly and unambiguously apply can create exceptions; R.C. 2305.15(A) does so. | Wilson means only the exceptions listed in R.C. 2305.113(C)/(D) apply to the medical‑claim repose; R.C. 2305.15(A) is not such an exception. | The Court distinguished Wilson: Wilson rejected the saving statute as an exception but did not override an explicit tolling provision like R.C. 2305.15(A); here the tolling statute expressly applies and must be enforced. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilson v. Durrani, 164 Ohio St.3d 419 (Ohio 2020) (held R.C. 2305.113(C) is a true statute of repose and declined to apply the saving statute to extend repose)
- Ruther v. Kaiser, 134 Ohio St.3d 408 (Ohio 2012) (defines accrual/discovery rule for medical malpractice claims)
- CTS Corp. v. Waldburger, 573 U.S. 1 (U.S. 2014) (discusses purpose of statutes of repose and defendants' entitlement to finality)
- California Pub. Emps.' Ret. Sys. v. ANZ Sec., Inc., 137 S. Ct. 2042 (U.S. 2017) (statutes of repose are generally not subject to tolling absent particular legislative indication)