Schmitz v. Natl. Collegiate Athletic Assn. (Slip Opinion)
122 N.E.3d 80
Ohio2018Background
- Steven Schmitz played college football at Notre Dame from 1974–1978 and experienced repeated concussive and sub-concussive head impacts; he alleged episodes of disorientation during play.
- In December 2012 Schmitz was diagnosed with chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE); by 2014 he had severe cognitive decline and other neurological diagnoses; he died in February 2015.
- Schmitz and his wife sued Notre Dame and the NCAA in October 2014 (amended complaint January 2015) asserting negligence, fraudulent concealment, constructive fraud, contract claims, and loss of consortium; the estate substituted after his death.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) as time-barred; the trial court granted dismissal.
- The Eighth District reversed in part, holding the amended complaint did not conclusively show accrual prior to the 2012 diagnosis and applying the discovery rule; it treated fraud claims as governed by the four-year fraud statute.
- The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed reversal of dismissal (so claims survive the 12(B)(6) stage), held the discovery rule can apply to these latent-injury bodily-injury claims, but concluded fraud-based claims are governed by the two-year bodily-injury statute, R.C. 2305.10(A).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When do negligence/latent-injury claims accrue for statute-of-limitations purposes? | Accrual was delayed until Schmitz’s 2012 CTE diagnosis under the discovery rule. | Accrued when injury occurred or when symptoms first arose (by 1978), so claims are time-barred. | Discovery rule may apply; on the pleadings the complaint does not conclusively show accrual before Dec. 2012, so dismissal under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) was improper. |
| Whether a later diagnosis of long-term effects of a known injury revives a time-barred claim | Diagnosis marks accrual for latent disease claims. | A diagnosis of extent does not revive a claim already accrued when the initial injury or symptoms were known. | The Court declined to adopt a bright-line rule now but applied existing discovery-rule principles; factual issues remain for discovery. |
| Whether fraudulent-concealment and constructive-fraud claims are governed by the two-year bodily-injury or four-year fraud statute | These fraud-based claims seek recovery for bodily injury and thus are governed by the two-year bodily-injury statute. | Fraud claims are separate and should be governed by the four-year fraud statute. | Fraudulent-concealment and constructive-fraud claims are governed by the two-year bodily-injury statute (R.C. 2305.10(A)). |
| Appropriateness of dismissal under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) on statute-of-limitations grounds | Complaint alleges latent injury and lack of knowledge until 2012; dismissal is premature. | The complaint shows symptoms and public developments (e.g., 2010 NCAA rule change) that should have put plaintiff on notice before 2012. | Dismissal under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) was improper because the amended complaint does not conclusively show the claims are time-barred; factual questions require discovery. |
Key Cases Cited
- O’Stricker v. Jim Walter Corp., 4 Ohio St.3d 84 (1983) (formulated discovery rule for latent bodily-injury claims based on diagnosis or when plaintiff reasonably should have known).
- Liddell v. SCA Servs. of Ohio, Inc., 70 Ohio St.3d 6 (1994) (applied discovery rule where latent cancer was diagnosed years after exposure; accrual on competent medical advice linking injury to exposure).
- Norgard v. Brush Wellman, Inc., 95 Ohio St.3d 165 (2002) (accrual requires knowledge or what reasonable diligence would have revealed).
- Allenius v. Thomas, 42 Ohio St.3d 131 (1989) (statute of limitations triggered by a cognizable event that should alert a reasonable person to investigate).
- Browning v. Burt, 66 Ohio St.3d 544 (1993) (different causes of action arising from same physical injury may accrue at different times depending on when plaintiff discovers facts triggering each claim).
- Gaines v. Preterm-Cleveland, Inc., 33 Ohio St.3d 54 (1987) (fraud claim may be distinct from malpractice where underlying conduct differs).
- Velotta v. Leo Petronzio Landscaping, Inc., 69 Ohio St.2d 376 (1982) (12(B)(6) dismissal for statute-of-limitations only when complaint conclusively shows claim is time-barred).