Kennedy v. W. Res. Senior Care, 2024 Ohio 5565

Claudia Kennedy, executor of Donald Gerres’s estate, filed a wrongful death/medical malpractice suit in Ohio, alleging substandard care caused Gerres’s death in 2013.
The case was initially filed in 2014, voluntarily dismissed in 2019, and refiled within a year.
Defendants sought dismissal, arguing the four-year statute of repose for medical claims barred the refiled action; Kennedy countered that Ohio’s saving statute and tolling statute (R.C. 2305.15(A)) preserved the claim.
The trial court sided with Kennedy, but after the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in Wilson v. Durrani (holding the saving statute does not apply where the statute of repose has expired on a refiled suit), the trial court granted a directed verdict for defendants.
The appellate court affirmed, holding that the tolling statute, as applied to out-of-state defendants like Dr. Acharya, violated the dormant Commerce Clause.
The Ohio Supreme Court reviewed whether applying R.C. 2305.15(A) to toll the statute of repose for an out-of-state physician violates the dormant Commerce Clause.

Issue	Kennedy’s Argument	Defendants’ Argument	Held
Does R.C. 2305.15(A) toll the statute of repose for out-of-state defendants in med-mal cases?	Statute tolls the statute of repose for absent defendants (like Dr. Acharya)	Tolling statute violates dormant Commerce Clause when applied to professionals who leave for business	Statute does not violate dormant Commerce Clause; tolling applies to out-of-state physician
Is the tolling statute discriminatory or a burden on interstate commerce?	Tolling statute is neutral, not meant to protect in-state interests	Statute burdens interstate commerce by deterring professionals from leaving Ohio for work	Statute is not discriminatory and the burden on commerce is not clearly excessive
Does the precedent in Bendix Autolite Corp. v. Midwesco Ents., Inc. control?	Bendix involved corporations, not individuals; facts are distinguishable	Bendix controls; tolling is unconstitutional as applied to out-of-state actors	Bendix is inapposite; case factually distinct and not controlling for individuals
Is the putative local benefit outweighed by any burden imposed?	Statute serves a legitimate local purpose (aiding service of process on absent defendants)	Burden (perpetual liability) outweighs benefit; deters interstate movement	Local benefit outweighs any incidental burden; record lacks evidence of substantial burden

Bendix Autolite Corp. v. Midwesco Ents., Inc., 486 U.S. 888 (U.S. 1988) (invalidated Ohio's tolling statute under Dormant Commerce Clause for corporate defendants)
Wilson v. Durrani, 2020-Ohio-6827 (Ohio 2020) (holding saving statute does not extend medical claim past statute of repose)
Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U.S. 137 (U.S. 1970) (balancing test for state law burdens on interstate commerce)
Oregon Waste Sys., Inc. v. Oregon Dept. of Environmental Quality, 511 U.S. 93 (U.S. 1994) (articulates what constitutes discrimination under the Commerce Clause)
Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery Co., 449 U.S. 456 (U.S. 1981) (dormant Commerce Clause analysis of facially neutral state law)
Exxon Corp. v. Governor of Maryland, 437 U.S. 117 (U.S. 1978) (non-discriminatory burden on out-of-state interests upheld)