Johnson v. Randall Smith, Inc., 965 N.E.2d 344

Dr. Smith performed laparoscopic gallbladder surgery on Jeanette Johnson in April 2001 with complications requiring a t-tube in the common duct.
Johnson experienced ductal narrowing and jaundice, leading toreadmission and multiple subsequent procedures over 11 months.
Smith told Johnson he would take full responsibility for what had happened while she was in the hospital with family present.
Johnson and her husband filed a medical-malpractice suit within 17 months of the initial procedure; the action was dismissed in 2006, then refiled in 2007 asserting negligence and loss of consortium.
Approximately ten days before trial in 2010, appellees moved in limine to bar evidence of Smith’s “take full responsibility” statement as a privileged admission under RC 2317.43.
The trial court ruled the statute could be applied retroactively and exclusions based on RC 2317.43, before trial, leading to a verdict against Johnsons and remand for a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Retroactive application of RC 2317.43	Johnson argues RC 2317.43 cannot apply retroactively to 2001 statement.	Smith argues RC 2317.43 can be applied retroactively to cover the case.	Retroactive application not permitted; statute applies prospectively only.
Admissibility of the statement under Evid.R. 801/403	Statement is admissible as an admission; not hearsay and probative.	Statement barred by RC 2317.43 as a sympathy/assurance; retroactive exclusion.	Statement admissible; probative value not substantially outweighed by prejudice; jury may hear it.

Brannon v. Austinburg Rehab. & Nursing Ctr., 2010-Ohio-5396 (2010-Ohio-5396) (retroactivity analysis: where statute silent on retroactivity, presume prospective under R.C. 1.48)
Cover v. Hildebran, 103 Ohio App. 413 (1957) (interpretation of terms like 'brought' or commencement of action)
McNeil v. Kingsley, 178 Ohio App.3d 674 (2008-Ohio-5536) (definition of 'action' and 'brought' for retroactivity context)