Schmitz v. Natl. Collegiate Athletic Assn.
67 N.E.3d 852
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Steven Schmitz played Notre Dame football from 1974–1978; decades later he was diagnosed with CTE and related neurodegenerative conditions in December 2012.
- In October 2014 Schmitz and his wife sued Notre Dame and the NCAA alleging failure to warn, negligent conduct, fraudulent concealment, breach of contract, and loss of consortium; amended complaint is the operative pleading.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), principally arguing the claims were time-barred by Ohio statutes of limitations (and the NCAA also argued failure to state claims).
- The trial court dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice; plaintiffs appealed. Schmitz died during proceedings and his estate was substituted.
- The appellate court reviewed de novo, applied Ohio law for limitations, and examined whether the discovery rule tolled plaintiffs’ tort claims based on latent injury allegations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Application of discovery rule to negligence (latent CTE) | Schmitz discovered injury and causation in Dec 2012; tolled until then | Accrual occurred when symptoms or concussions were known decades earlier | Discovery rule applies to latent neurodegenerative injury; cannot dismiss on face of complaint — factual inquiry required |
| Timeliness of fraud claims | Fraud not time-barred; discovery rule applies; 4‑year statute for fraud controls | Claims should be treated as bodily-injury for 2‑yr limit or otherwise time-barred | Fraud (fraudulent concealment) not conclusively time-barred; discovery rule applies; claim survives pleading stage |
| Breach of contract claims based on 1970s conduct | Tolled by discovery rule / latent injury | Breach accrued in 1970s; statutes of limitations expired | Discovery rule does not apply to contract claims; contract claims are time-barred and properly dismissed |
| Sufficiency of pleaded causes (duty / fraud elements / constructive fraud) | Complaints allege NCAA/Notre Dame assumed duties, concealed risks, and plaintiffs relied on them | NCAA says no legal duty, insufficient particularity for fraud/constructive fraud, no fiduciary relationship | Negligence and fraudulent concealment claims adequately pleaded to survive 12(B)(6); constructive fraud against NCAA (no special/ fiduciary relationship pleaded) properly dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Flagstar Bank, F.S.B. v. Airline Union’s Mtge. Co., 128 Ohio St.3d 529, 2011-Ohio-1961, 947 N.E.2d 672 (Ohio 2011) (discusses discovery rule and accrual; statutes of limitations given liberal construction)
- O’Stricker v. Jim Walter Corp., 4 Ohio St.3d 84, 447 N.E.2d 727 (Ohio 1983) (establishes discovery rule tests for accrual and when limitations begin)
- Liddell v. SCA Servs., 70 Ohio St.3d 6, 635 N.E.2d 1233 (Ohio 1994) (latent disease accrual; plaintiff need not have discovered ultimate condition within limitations period)
- Wallace v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 96 Ohio St.3d 266, 2002-Ohio-4210, 773 N.E.2d 1018 (Ohio 2002) (elements of negligence; duty analysis)
- Russ v. TRW, Inc., 59 Ohio St.3d 42, 570 N.E.2d 1076 (Ohio 1991) (elements of common-law fraud / disclosure vs. concealment)