Kerby v. Zerick, 2024 Ohio 5665

Trudy and Wayne Kerby filed a medical malpractice suit against Dr. William Zerick, concerning an allegedly negligent 2018 surgery.
Their original case was dismissed without prejudice in 2022 for not complying with expert report deadlines.
The Kerbys refiled their complaint in September 2022, but failed in multiple attempts to serve Dr. Zerick within one year, as required by Ohio law.
Dr. Zerick responded and specifically raised insufficient service of process as a defense.
No evidence was provided by the Kerbys showing that service was perfected; Dr. Zerick submitted an affidavit stating he was not served.
The trial court granted summary judgment to Dr. Zerick and dismissed the case with prejudice, finding lack of personal jurisdiction due to improper service.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Summary judgment due to lack of service	Service may have occurred; factual dispute exists	Not served; no evidence of service	No genuine issue—no service, judgment for defendant
Motions to compel discovery	Trial court should have compelled responses	Court lacks jurisdiction to compel	No jurisdiction; motions to compel denied
Extension of service deadline	Trial court erred in denying extension	Deadline is absolute	No authority to extend time under Civ.R. 3(A); denial affirmed

Saunders v. Choi, 12 Ohio St.3d 247 (Civ.R. 3(A) requires service within one year or case is not commenced)
Maryhew v. Yova, 11 Ohio St.3d 154 (proper service is required for personal jurisdiction; judgment without it is void)
Gliozzo v. Univ. Urologists of Cleveland, Inc., 114 Ohio St.3d 141 (defenses to service must be properly preserved, actual notice does not satisfy service requirements)
Laneve v. Atlas Recycling, 119 Ohio St.3d 324 (lack of prejudice or actual notice does not excuse failure to comply with service rules)
Mason v. Waters, 6 Ohio St.2d 212 (court has no authority to extend statutory time for commencing actions)