Szwarga v. Riverside Methodist Hosp., 23 N.E.3d 260

Elaina Szwarga underwent an ERCP at Riverside Methodist Hospital on April 26, 2010, giving rise to a potential medical-negligence claim.
Plaintiffs filed suit October 17, 2011, naming Riverside and Dr. Reddy and others; claims included medical negligence and related theories.
Ohio R.C. 2305.113(A) requires medical claims to be filed within one year of accrual; R.C. 2305.113(B) allows an 180-day extension if proper notice is given.
Appellants sent an 180-day notice letter dated April 21, 2011, allegedly to extend the limitations period; the letter indicated settlement efforts and contemplated litigation if no settlement occurred.
The trial court granted summary judgment, holding the 180-day letter did not meet statutory requirements; the court deemed April 26, 2010 the accrual date and the action time-barred.
The appellate court reversed and remanded, finding the April 21, 2011 letter complied with R.C. 2305.113(B)(1) and extended the limitations period.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 180-day letter complies with R.C. 2305.113(B)(1).	Szwarga argues the letter, read in full, notified Riverside that they were considering bringing an action.	Riverside contends the letter failed to state that an action was presently being considered and was primarily an invitation to settle.	Yes; the letter satisfied notice requirement and extended the statute.

Marshall v. Ortega, 87 Ohio St.3d 522 (2000) (statutory 180-day notice liberal construction to extend time for medical claims)
Edens v. Barberton Area Family Practice Ctr., 43 Ohio St.3d 176 (1989) (notice provision to extend time; purpose to allow investigation)
Kline v. Felix, 81 Ohio App.3d 36 (1991) (notice language showing likelihood of filing a lawsuit can extend time)
Byard v. Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease, 870 F.2d 657 (6th Cir. 1989) (timing and sufficiency of notice letters to trigger extension)