2018 Ohio 3263
Ohio2018Background
- Pamela and Haskell Portee sued the Cleveland Clinic and two doctors for medical malpractice after surgery on Oct. 3, 2012.
- The Portees filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana on Oct. 2, 2013; that federal court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction on July 28, 2014.
- The Portees refiled the same claim in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court on July 17, 2015, after Ohio's one-year medical-malpractice limitations period had expired.
- The Clinic moved for summary judgment arguing R.C. 2305.113 barred the action and R.C. 2305.19 (Ohio's savings statute) does not save suits originally commenced in another state.
- The trial court granted summary judgment based on Howard v. Allen; the appellate court reversed, holding the savings statute applied to any action commenced elsewhere; the clinic appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court.
- The Ohio Supreme Court (lead opinion) reversed the appellate court and reinstated the trial court’s judgment, holding the savings statute does not apply to actions originally commenced in another state.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ohio's saving statute, R.C. 2305.19, permits refiling in Ohio when the original action was commenced in a federal court of another state and dismissed otherwise than on the merits after the Ohio limitations period expired | Portee: R.C. 2305.19 applies to "any action," should be liberally construed; Wasyk, Vaccariello, and Osborne support application to federal-initiated suits | Clinic: Howard controls; the savings statute applies only to actions commenced or attempted in Ohio; no basis to distinguish state foreign courts from federal courts in other states | The saving statute does not apply to actions originally commenced in another state (federal or state); refiling in Ohio after Ohio limitations expired is barred |
Key Cases Cited
- Howard v. Allen, 30 Ohio St.2d 130 (1972) (interpreting R.C. 2305.19 to apply only to actions commenced or attempted in Ohio)
- Wasyk v. Trent, 174 Ohio St. 525 (1963) (held a federal-court action dismissed for lack of diversity could be saved under the saving statute)
- Vaccariello v. Smith & Nephew Richards, Inc., 94 Ohio St.3d 380 (2002) (held tolling principles for class actions modify Howard in the class-action context)
- Osborne v. AK Steel/Armco Steel Co., 96 Ohio St.3d 368 (2002) (applied saving statute to an age-discrimination claim initially filed in federal court)