2022 Ohio 629
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- 2003: Todd Everhart injured in automobile accident; chest x-rays taken at Coshocton County Memorial Hospital showed a lung opacity; he was later transferred to Ohio State where new x-rays were taken.
- 2006: Everhart returned to Coshocton Hospital and a CT on August 11, 2006 revealed advanced lung cancer; he died October 28, 2006.
- 2008: Machelle Everhart (widow and estate administrator) sued the hospital and multiple physicians for medical malpractice and wrongful death, alleging failure to send/act on x-rays/radiology report.
- 2013: This court reversed summary judgment for one defendant (Hamza), finding a fact issue whether a physician‑patient relationship existed.
- Defendants later sought to amend answers to assert the four‑year medical‑claims statute of repose (R.C. 2305.113(C)) following Antoon; the trial court granted judgment on the pleadings for Dr. Mendiola in Jan. 2021, concluding the wrongful death claim was barred.
- This appeal challenges (1) application of the medical statute of repose to a statutory wrongful death claim and (2) denial of leave to file a third amended complaint; the Tenth District reversed the trial court on the repose issue and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 2305.113(C)'s four‑year statute of repose for "medical claims" bars a wrongful death action under R.C. 2125.02 when the underlying conduct is medical negligence | Everhart: Wrongful death is a separate statutory cause of action; R.C. 2125.02 contains no general medical‑claim repose and the legislature did not intend R.C. 2305.113(C) to apply to wrongful death | Mendiola: A wrongful death arising from medical care is a "medical claim," so the four‑year statute of repose bars the action if the act/omission occurred over four years before suit | Court: Reversed trial court — R.C. 2125.02 does not incorporate a four‑year medical statute of repose; wrongful death is a distinct statutory cause and the legislature included a repose only for product‑liability wrongful death, so R.C. 2305.113(C) does not bar this wrongful death claim |
| Whether the trial court erred in denying leave to file a third amended complaint | Everhart: Leave should be permitted to supplement facts showing repose does not apply | Defendants: Opposed amendment; argued repose defense appropriate | Court: Moot — because the court held the statute of repose did not apply, the question of leave to amend is no longer a live controversy |
Key Cases Cited
- Antoon v. Cleveland Clinic Found., 148 Ohio St.3d 483 (Ohio 2016) (interpreting R.C. 2305.113(C) as a true four‑year statute of repose for medical claims)
- Ruther v. Kaiser, 134 Ohio St.3d 408 (Ohio 2012) (upholding constitutionality and repose rationale of R.C. 2305.113(C))
- Wilson v. Durrani, 164 Ohio St.3d 419 (Ohio 2020) (explaining differences between statutes of limitations and statutes of repose and applying R.C. 2305.113(C))
- Koler v. St. Joseph Hosp., 69 Ohio St.2d 477 (Ohio 1982) (recognizing wrongful death and medical malpractice as distinct causes of action)
- Klema v. St. Elizabeth's Hosp., 170 Ohio St. 519 (Ohio 1960) (explaining wrongful death is a statutory cause of action distinct from injured party's claim)
- CTS Corp. v. Waldburger, 573 U.S. 1 (U.S. 2014) (describing statutes of repose as barring the right of action itself and protecting defendants from indefinite liability)