Estate of Johnson v. Randall Smith, Inc.
135 Ohio St. 3d 440
| Ohio | 2013Background
- Dr. Smith performed gallbladder removal on Jeanette Johnson in 2001; duct injury occurred, necessitating an open procedure.
- After the 2001 surgery, Dr. Smith told Mrs. Johnson, while comforting her, that he took full responsibility and said everything would be okay.
- The Johnsons filed a medical-malpractice action in 2002, which was dismissed in 2006; a new complaint was filed on July 26, 2007.
- Dr. Smith moved in limine to exclude evidence of the 2001 apology statement.
- The trial court excluded the statement under R.C. 2317.43; the Eleventh District reversed, held statute retroactive, and ordered a new trial; the Supreme Court granted discretionary review.
- The Court held that R.C. 2317.43 applies to actions “brought” after September 13, 2004, and excludes the 2001 apology statement from admissibility, reinstating the jury verdict for Dr. Smith.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 2317.43 applies to actions filed after its enactment. | Johnson s argue statute retroactively excludes pre-enactment statement. | Smith argues statute covers actions brought after 2004. | Yes; statute applies to actions filed after 2004. |
| Does the statute apply to a pre-enactment apology made before the action was filed? | Statement would be admissible if statute not applied retroactively. | Statute precludes admission if action filed after 2004. | Apology statement properly excluded. |
| Should the appellate court have considered retroactivity or prospective application? | Retroactivity favored by Johnsons (depending on timing). | Remedies rules favor prospective application. | Statute applies prospectively to post-2004 actions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Zimmie v. Zimmie, 11 Ohio St.3d 94 (1984) (treats dismissal as if never commenced for voluntary dismissals)
- Kilbreath v. Rudy, 16 Ohio St.2d 70 (1968) (remedial statutes apply to proceedings after adoption)
- Denicola v. Providence Hosp., 57 Ohio St.2d 115 (1979) (prospective application of later-enacted laws)
- Cover v. Hildebran, 103 Ohio App.3d 413 (1995) (statutory language governs action timing)
- Sears v. Weimer, 143 Ohio St. 312 (1944) (interpretation of statute language and timing)