2022 Ohio 2560
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background:
- Toni Ewing (executor/next-of-kin) sued UC Health and University of Cincinnati Medical Center alleging survivorship, wrongful-death, and an individual "emotional harm" claim arising from Shirley Ewing’s inpatient care (Feb–Mar 2014) and death on March 25, 2014.
- Complaint filed April 16, 2018; plaintiff asserted compliance with R.C. 2305.113 notice and that this was a refiling within one year of a voluntary dismissal in a prior case.
- Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing the medical-claim statute of repose (R.C. 2305.113(C)) barred the claims and that the emotional-harm claim failed as a matter of law.
- Trial court granted the motion (June 22, 2021), dismissing all counts: survivorship and wrongful-death as medical claims barred by repose; emotional-harm for failing to plead severe emotional distress.
- On appeal, this court affirmed dismissal of the emotional-harm and survivorship claims but reversed as to the wrongful-death claim and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the individual "emotional harm" count sufficiently pleads negligent infliction of serious emotional distress | Ewing alleged she suffered emotional harm discovering her mother’s broken leg and other damages | Allegations of mere "emotional harm" do not meet Paugh’s requirement of serious, debilitating distress | Dismissed — allegations insufficient as a matter of law to plead serious emotional distress (Paugh). |
| Whether the medical-claim statute of repose (R.C. 2305.113(C)) may extinguish a refiled survivorship (survival) claim | Ewing: savings statute vested a right to refile; retroactive application of Wilson (and repose) cannot constitutionally extinguish vested rights | Defendants: statute of repose applies to both vested and nonvested claims; Wilson applies and repose bars the survivorship claim | Affirmed — repose may extinguish refiled survivorship claims; application of Wilson not limited to prospective-only. |
| Whether a wrongful-death claim arising from medical care is governed solely by R.C. 2125.02(D) (two-year limit) or is also subject to the medical-claim statute of repose (R.C. 2305.113(C)) | Ewing: wrongful-death actions are statutory, governed by R.C. 2125.02(D)’s two-year rule; legislature provided specific exceptions and did not subject wrongful death to R.C. 2305.113(C) | Defendants: wrongful-death claims related to medical diagnosis/care fit the broad statutory definition of a "medical claim" and thus are subject to R.C. 2305.113(C) repose | Reversed — wrongful-death claims are governed by R.C. 2125.02(D) and are not subject to the medical-claim statute of repose in R.C. 2305.113(C). |
Key Cases Cited
- Paugh v. Hanks, 6 Ohio St.3d 72 (1983) (defines negligent infliction of serious emotional distress and the "seriousness" requirement)
- Antoon v. Cleveland Clinic Found., 148 Ohio St.3d 483 (2016) (upholds medical-claim statute of repose as constitutional; applies to vested and nonvested claims)
- Wilson v. Durrani, 164 Ohio St.3d 419 (2020) (Ohio Supreme Court ruling on medical-claim statute of repose and its application)
- Thompson v. Wing, 70 Ohio St.3d 176 (1994) (explains survival and wrongful-death actions are separate and distinct causes of action)
- Klema v. St. Elizabeth's Hosp., 170 Ohio St. 519 (1960) (establishes the separate nature of wrongful-death and survival claims)
- Estate of Stevic v. Bio-Med. Application of Ohio, Inc., 121 Ohio St.3d 488 (2009) (statutory text controls; courts must give full meaning to express statutory language)