Freeman v. Durrani, 2019 Ohio 3643

In June 2008 Julie Freeman underwent a C6–C7 anterior cervical discectomy and fusion performed by Dr. Abubakar Durrani at The Christ Hospital; she alleges the surgery was unnecessary and worsened her pain.
Freeman sued Durrani, CAST, and Cincinnati Children’s on August 4, 2015 (claims: negligence, battery, lack of informed consent, intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraud, spoliation, products liability, OCSPA), more than four years after the 2008 surgery.
Defendants moved to dismiss / for judgment on the pleadings, asserting Freeman’s claims are barred by Ohio’s four-year medical statute of repose (R.C. 2305.113).
Freeman sought leave to amend (Sept. 2017) to add factual detail on fraud but proposed no new causes of action.
Trial court granted defendants’ motions and denied leave to amend as futile; Freeman appealed.
The First District affirmed, holding no judicial fraud or equitable-estoppel exceptions to the medical statute of repose and that Freeman’s fraud allegations were medical claims barred by the repose period.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a judicial fraud exception or equitable-estoppel exception applies to Ohio’s medical statute of repose	Freeman: courts should recognize fraud/equitable-estoppel exceptions to prevent injustice	Defs: statute is clear, unambiguous, and the General Assembly omitted such exceptions intentionally	Court: No; declines to create exceptions—statute is legislative domain and clear
Whether Freeman’s fraud allegations are independent nonmedical fraud claims or medical claims governed by the statute of repose	Freeman: fraud claims (e.g., post-op misstatements) are independent and nonmedical	Defs: allegations arise from diagnosis, care, treatment (including informed-consent issues) and are therefore medical claims under R.C. 2305.113	Court: Fraud allegations here are medical claims and thus barred by the four-year repose
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying leave to amend the complaint	Freeman: should be allowed to amend to plead fraud details to avoid repose	Defs: amendment would be futile because the claims remain time-barred	Court: Denial was not an abuse of discretion—amendment would be futile

Antoon v. Cleveland Clinic Found., 71 N.E.3d 974 (Ohio 2016) (statute of repose language is clear and bars untimely medical-claim suits)
Crissinger v. Christ Hosp., 106 N.E.3d 798 (1st Dist. 2017) (refused to recognize a fraud exception to the medical statute of repose)
Gaines v. Preterm–Cleveland, Inc., 514 N.E.2d 709 (Ohio 1987) (physician’s nonmedical misrepresentation can support independent fraud when not motivated by medical considerations)
Hambleton v. R.G. Barry Corp., 465 N.E.2d 1298 (Ohio 1984) (use actual nature of claim, not pleading form, to select limitation period)
Ruther v. Kaiser, 983 N.E.2d 291 (Ohio 2012) (legislature may define contours of causes of action and limitation periods)
Doe v. Marlington Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Edn., 907 N.E.2d 706 (Ohio 2009) (courts should apply statutes as written and not rewrite legislative choices)