Ruther v. Kaiser
134 Ohio St. 3d 408
Ohio2012Background
- This is an as-applied constitutional challenge to Ohio's medical-malpractice statute of repose, R.C. 2305.113(C).
- The Twelfth District held that R.C. 2305.113(C), as applied, violates the Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 16 (right to remedy).
- R.C. 2305.113(C) imposes a four-year repose for medical claims, with limited discovery-based and foreign-object exceptions in D.
- Timothy Ruther developed abdominal pains in 2008; elevated liver enzymes were noted in 1995, 1997, and 1998; treatment by Dr. Kaiser ended years before the suit.
- The Ruthers filed suit in 2009; Mr. Ruther died; the wrongful-death claim was added but not at issue on appeal; summary-judgment denials were upheld by trial and appellate courts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of the statute as applied | Ruther argues the statute violates Article I, Section 16. | Kaiser/defendants contend the statute is constitutional as applied. | Statute constitutional as applied; overruled Hardy. |
| Vesting and open courts analysis | Hardy wrongly analyzed vesting; claims vest upon discovery, not at breach. | Statute limits vesting period; repose is valid. | R.C. 2305.113(C) does not extinguish vested rights; it is a valid repose. |
| Rational basis for statute of repose | Statute would unduly burden claimants by extinguishing undiscovered injuries. | Legislature balanced claimant rights with finality for providers. | Legislative policy rational; finality for providers is legitimate. |
| Overruling Hardy v. VerMeulen | Hardy should be followed as controlling precedent. | Hardy should be overruled given new context and cases like Groch. | Hardy overruled; statute constitutional as applied. |
| Reliance interests and practical workability | Reliance on Hardy would be disrupted; potential hardship to claimants. | Overruling Hardy would not cause undue reliance hardship; repose is workable. | Overruling Hardy feasible; Galatis framework supports this. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hardy v. VerMeulen, 32 Ohio St.3d 45 (1987) (open courts/right-to-remedy analysis for medical-repose)
- Groch v. Gen. Motors Corp., 117 Ohio St.3d 192 (2008) (recognizes state-law control of injuries/remedies; accrual vesting concepts)
- Sedar v. Knowlton Constr. Co., 49 Ohio St.3d 193 (1990) (statutory remedies; vesting considerations)
- Frysinger v. Leech, 32 Ohio St.3d 38 (1987) (accrual is at discovery or termination of relationship)
- Galatis v. Greene, 100 Ohio St.3d 216 (2003) (test for overruling prior precedent (workability, reliance))
- Aicher v. Wisconsin Patients Comp. Fund, 237 Wis.2d 99 (2000) (constitutional upholding of medical-repose statute)
- Mussivand v. David, 45 Ohio St.3d 314 (1989) (when a negligence claim accrues; existence of duty, breach, injury)
- Westfield Ins. Co. v. Galatis, 100 Ohio St.3d 216 (2003) (Galatis standard for overruling precedent)