2022 Ohio 4445
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- On March 2, 2014 Michelle Sullivan presented to Mercy Fairfield Hospital ER; despite reported allergy, she was given Zofran and developed an adverse reaction treated in the hospital.
- Michelle received continuing inpatient care for the reaction through March 6, 2014, when she was discharged.
- Plaintiffs served 180-day notice letters on March 3, 2015; defendants argued the letters were one day late if accrual occurred on March 2, 2014.
- The magistrate and trial court concluded accrual began March 2 and granted partial summary judgment for the Hospital (relying on this court's Asai decision); the matter proceeded to trial against individual providers who were defended successfully at trial.
- On appeal the Twelfth District reversed the grant of summary judgment for the Hospital, holding the statute of limitations was tolled until the hospital-patient relationship for the condition terminated (March 6), so the 180-day letter was timely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When did the medical-malpractice statute of limitations begin to run for hospital claims? | Limitations began when the hospital relationship for the condition ended (March 6), because Michelle continued to receive treatment for the same reaction. | Limitations began on March 2 (the cognizable event) when Michelle formed belief she received improper treatment. | Reversed: because Michelle continued to receive care for the same condition through March 6, the termination rule delayed accrual until discharge. |
| Was this court's prior decision in Asai controlling here? | Asai is distinguishable; Asai involved an unrelated subsequent ER visit and a pre-existing physician relationship, so it does not mandate accrual on the initial event here. | Asai requires accrual at the cognizable event (March 2). | Asai was inapplicable: facts differ materially (ongoing in-hospital care for same condition), so Asai did not justify summary judgment for the Hospital. |
| Were the Hospital's direct negligence claims time-barred? | No — timely 180-day notice because termination occurred at discharge. | Yes — untimely because limitations ran from March 2. | Claims against the Hospital were not time-barred; case reversed and remanded for further proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Akers v. Alonzo, 65 Ohio St.3d 422 (1992) (medical-malpractice accrual: discovery or termination rule)
- Edens v. Barberton Area Family Practice Ctr., 43 Ohio St.3d 176 (1989) (180-day notice is effective upon receipt)
- Frysinger v. Leech, 32 Ohio St.3d 38 (1987) (statute begins when physician-patient relationship for the condition terminates)
- Clark v. Southview Hosp. & Family Health Ctr., 68 Ohio St.3d 435 (1994) (standard for hospital liability when holding itself out to public)
- Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, Inc., 82 Ohio St.3d 367 (1998) (summary judgment standard)