Mims v. Univ. of Toledo Med. Ctr.
2017 Ohio 8979
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On July 17, 2012, Daniel Boyd allegedly suffered brain hemorrhage and cardiac arrest after Dr. Elsamaloty misread a CT scan at University of Toledo Medical Center (UT).
- Boyd filed a medical negligence suit in Lucas County Common Pleas (Dec. 2013); UT and the physician moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, prompting Boyd to file in the Court of Claims (Feb. 2014).
- The Court of Claims granted summary judgment for UT, holding Boyd’s claim barred by the one-year statute of limitations; Boyd did not appeal that judgment but unsuccessfully sought Civ.R. 60(B) relief.
- Later, the Court of Claims issued an immunity determination for Dr. Elsamaloty, and Boyd’s Lucas County case was dismissed (July 27, 2016).
- Appellant (Boyd’s guardian) filed a new Court of Claims action (Sept. 12, 2016) reasserting the same negligence claim and adding a loss-of-consortium claim; UT moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) as barred by res judicata and/or statute of limitations.
- The Court of Claims dismissed the complaint; on appeal this court affirmed, holding res judicata barred the refiled negligence claim and the derivative loss-of-consortium claim was time-barred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether res judicata bars the refiled medical negligence claim | Mims: dismissal of Lucas County case and timely refiling under the savings statute permits relitigation | UT: prior Court of Claims summary judgment on statute of limitations is a final judgment on the merits; res judicata bars relitigation | Held: Res judicata applies; prior judgment on statute of limitations is a judgment on the merits and bars the claim |
| Whether R.C. 2305.19 (savings statute) avoids res judicata | Mims: she dismissed Lucas County case and refiled within one year, so savings statute applies | UT: savings statute cannot revive a claim already finally adjudicated on the merits in Court of Claims | Held: Savings statute inapplicable where prior Court of Claims judgment was on the merits (LaBarbera controlling) |
| Whether equitable/fairness arguments excuse res judicata/statute of limitations | Mims: fairness and justice justify permitting the timely refiling | UT: allowing this would undermine statutes of limitation and res judicata policies | Held: Rejected; plaintiff could have timely filed in Court of Claims and prior on‑the‑merits judgment prevents relitigation |
| Whether loss-of-consortium claim survives | Mims: newly asserted derivative claim should be permitted | UT: derivative claim is time-barred because tied to the barred negligence claim | Held: Loss-of-consortium dismissed as barred by statute of limitations; appellant did not challenge this ruling on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Grava v. Parkman Twp., 73 Ohio St.3d 379 (Ohio 1995) (defines res judicata scope for claims arising from same transaction)
- LaBarbera v. Batsch, 10 Ohio St.2d 106 (Ohio 1967) (a judgment based on statute of limitations is a judgment on the merits; savings statute cannot be used to relitigate claims barred by res judicata)
- Perrysburg Twp. v. Rossford, 103 Ohio St.3d 79 (Ohio 2004) (standard of review for Civ.R. 12[B][6] dismissal)
- York v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol, 60 Ohio St.3d 143 (Ohio 1991) (on construing complaints in ruling on Civ.R. 12[B][6])