Garcia v. Parenteau
2017 Ohio 8519
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Luciano Garcia underwent coronary artery bypass surgery performed by Dr. Parenteau on October 4, 2012 at Blanchard Valley Hospital.
- Plaintiffs (Luciano and Nora Garcia) sued for medical malpractice on July 23, 2014; initial complaint did not name Dr. Meier or BVMA.
- Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on December 11, 2015 adding Dr. David J. Meier and Blanchard Valley Medical Associates (BVMA).
- Dr. Meier and BVMA moved for summary judgment arguing the claims against them were time-barred and that no physician–patient relationship existed between Dr. Meier and Luciano.
- The trial court granted summary judgment, finding the one-year statute of limitations had begun in September 2013 (the cognizable event) and therefore claims naming Meier/BVMA in December 2015 were untimely.
- Plaintiffs appealed, arguing the limitations period as to Meier/BVMA should have begun only when they discovered Meier’s involvement (May 6, 2015).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When did the malpractice statute of limitations accrue? | Limitations should run from plaintiffs’ discovery of Meier’s involvement (May 6, 2015). | Limitations ran from the cognizable event (Sept 2013) when Luciano knew he might have a malpractice claim. | Court: Accrual triggered by the cognizable event in Sept 2013; claims naming Meier/BVMA filed Dec 2015 were untimely. |
| Is discovery of a defendant’s identity (later) the accrual point? | Plaintiffs: discovery of a treating physician’s involvement can reset accrual for that defendant. | Defendants: accrual is tied to the cognizable event, not later investigatory discoveries; plaintiff must timely investigate. | Court: Discovery of additional facts/defendant does not delay accrual; responsibility to investigate rests with plaintiff. |
| Did a physician–patient relationship exist between Luciano and Dr. Meier? | Plaintiffs argue there was such a relationship (raised on appeal). | Defendants deny a physician–patient relationship was formed. | Court: Declined to address (moot) after ruling statute of limitations barred claim. |
| Was summary judgment appropriate? | Plaintiffs contend issues of fact preclude summary judgment. | Defendants assert only legal questions remain and entitlement to judgment as matter of law. | Court: Affirmed summary judgment because statute of limitations barred the claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wade v. Lima Mem. Hosp., 28 N.E.3d 161 (Ohio 2015) (discusses accrual under discovery rule for medical-malpractice claims)
- Flowers v. Walker, 589 N.E.2d 1284 (Ohio 1992) (defines the “cognizable event” that starts the discovery-rule accrual)
- Hershberger v. Akron City Hosp., 516 N.E.2d 204 (Ohio 1987) (explains constructive knowledge and the discovery rule in malpractice accrual)
- Tausch v. Riverview Health Inst., 931 N.E.2d 613 (Ohio App. 2010) (articulates factors for determining when a plaintiff should be on notice to investigate)