2023 Ohio 4670
Ohio2023Background
- In Dec. 2003 Todd Everhart received emergency care at Coshocton County Memorial Hospital; chest x‑rays showed an opacity. He was transferred and later not told of the finding.
- In 2006 Everhart was diagnosed with advanced lung cancer and died two months later; his widow filed suit (medical‑malpractice and wrongful death) in Jan. 2008.
- Defendants moved years later to plead the four‑year medical‑claims statute of repose in R.C. 2305.113(C); the trial court granted judgment on the pleadings for one defendant after denying plaintiff leave to file a third amended complaint alleging a continuing course of negligence.
- The Tenth District reversed, holding R.C. 2305.113(C) does not apply to statutory wrongful‑death claims and certified a conflict with other districts.
- The Ohio Supreme Court accepted the conflict question: whether the medical‑claim statute of repose in R.C. 2305.113(C) applies to wrongful‑death claims based on medical care.
Issues
| Issue | Everhart (Plaintiff) argument | Coshocton defendants (Defendant) argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 2305.113(C)’s four‑year medical‑claims statute of repose applies to wrongful‑death claims based on medical care | Wrongful‑death claims are governed solely by R.C. Chapter 2125 (two‑year wrongful‑death limit); nothing in Chapter 2125 subjects wrongful‑death claims to the medical‑claims repose | R.C. 2305.113(E)(3) broadly defines “medical claim” to include any civil claim against medical providers that arises out of medical diagnosis, care, or treatment, which on its face covers wrongful‑death claims | Court held R.C. 2305.113(E)(3) unambiguously includes medically based wrongful‑death claims; the four‑year statute of repose applies; judgment reversed and remanded |
| Whether R.C. Chapter 2125’s silence or its product‑liability repose precludes applying other statutes of repose (canon expressio unius) | Chapter 2125 is the exclusive wrongful‑death scheme; because it contains its own repose for product liability, other repose periods cannot be grafted on | The Revised Code must be read as an interrelated whole; Chapter 2125 contains no general bar to other statutory repose periods and does not remove medically based wrongful‑death claims from R.C. 2305.113(C) | Court held Chapter 2125 does not displace R.C. 2305.113(C); silence in Chapter 2125 does not exempt medically based wrongful‑death claims from the medical‑claim repose |
| Precedent Klema/Koler: do prior holdings that wrongful‑death claims are distinct foreclose application of the medical‑claim statute of repose? | Klema/Koler established wrongful‑death claims are distinct from malpractice claims and are governed only by Chapter 2125, so the medical malpractice time rules do not apply | The modern statutory definition of “medical claim” is broader than historical common‑law “malpractice,” and R.C. 2305.113(E)(3) now covers wrongful‑death claims arising from medical care | Court distinguished Klema/Koler: those cases addressed the malpractice statute of limitations in an earlier statutory scheme and do not control application of the defined term “medical claim” in R.C. 2305.113(E)(3) |
| Open‑courts / procedural fairness and ability to test repose (denial of amendment) | Trial court’s refusal to allow amendment to plead a continuing course of negligence prevented Everhart from showing the claim accrued within four years; open‑courts concerns | Defendants timely raised repose as an affirmative defense once case law clarified its applicability; repose is a valid statutory bar | Court answered the certified legal question in the affirmative and remanded to the Tenth District to decide Everhart’s remaining assignment (including whether amendment should have been allowed); it did not resolve constitutional/open‑courts claim on the merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Antoon v. Cleveland Clinic Found., 148 Ohio St.3d 483 (2016) (describing R.C. 2305.113(C) as a true statute of repose and enforcing its four‑year bar against refiled malpractice claims)
- Ruther v. Kaiser, 134 Ohio St.3d 408 (2012) (upholding statute of repose for medical claims against right‑to‑remedy challenge)
- Wilson v. Durrani, 164 Ohio St.3d 419 (2020) (affirming that the medical statute of repose is a distinct, absolute accrual limit within R.C. 2305.113)
- Klema v. St. Elizabeth’s Hosp., 170 Ohio St. (1960) (holding wrongful‑death claims are distinct from medical‑malpractice claims and governed by the wrongful‑death statute)
- Koler v. St. Joseph Hosp., 69 Ohio St.2d 477 (1982) (reaffirming Klema and rejecting inference that malpractice limitations automatically govern wrongful‑death claims)
- Hardy v. VerMeulen, 32 Ohio St.3d 45 (1987) (invalidating an earlier statute of repose under Ohio’s open‑courts provision; discussed as historical precedent later overruled on that point)