Taylor v. Mizer, 2018 Ohio 3779

Appellant Amber Taylor had an abnormal Pap (HGSIL) and was referred to Dr. Rajiv Patel after a primary care visit on Nov. 10, 2014; she met Patel on Dec. 3, 2014.
Patel reviewed records and prescribed oral contraceptives for bleeding and pelvic pain and scheduled a follow-up for March 4, 2015; Taylor cancelled that follow-up and never returned.
Taylor later sought care elsewhere; a cervical biopsy on July 16, 2015 diagnosed invasive squamous cell carcinoma, leading to radical surgery and adjuvant therapy.
Taylor sent a medical-malpractice notice of claim to Patel on June 17, 2016 and filed suit on Dec. 9, 2016 alleging delayed diagnosis and treatment.
Patel moved for summary judgment arguing Taylor’s claim was time-barred under Ohio’s one-year malpractice statute (R.C. 2305.113); the trial court granted the motion, finding accrual began no later than Dec. 3, 2014 (or at termination of the patient-physician relationship) and that the notice was untimely.
The appellate court affirmed, holding accrual occurred when Taylor cancelled the March 4, 2015 visit (termination of the physician-patient relationship), so Taylor’s June 2016 notice and Dec. 2016 complaint were barred.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
When did the malpractice statute of limitations accrue?	Accrual did not occur until biopsy and cancer diagnosis on July 16, 2015.	Accrual occurred no later than termination of the physician-patient relationship (by March 4, 2015).	Accrual occurred by the date Taylor cancelled the follow-up (no later than March 4, 2015).
Whether a "cognizable event" occurred earlier under the discovery rule	Taylor claims she lacked sufficient notice of wrongful treatment until definitive diagnosis.	Patel argues abnormal Pap and discussion of cancer constituted a cognizable event that should have alerted Taylor earlier.	Court found the abnormal Pap and prior counseling sufficiently alerted Taylor that improper care may have occurred.
Whether termination of the physician-patient relationship delayed accrual	Taylor contends relationship continued until diagnosis by oncologist.	Patel contends relationship ended when Taylor cancelled follow-up and sought other care.	Cancelled follow-up constituted termination; that event triggered accrual.
Whether Taylor’s notice and suit were timely under R.C. 2305.113(B)(1) tolling	Taylor asserts late notice still allowed suit within 180 days after notice.	Patel asserts notice was after the one-year period and thus tolling did not rescue the claim.	Notice (June 17, 2016) was after the one-year accrual cutoff; tolling provision did not apply.

Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102, 671 N.E.2d 241 (Ohio 1996) (standards for de novo appellate review of summary judgment)
Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, 82 Ohio St.3d 367, 696 N.E.2d 201 (Ohio 1998) (summary judgment standard and construing evidence most strongly for nonmoving party)
Allenius v. Thomas, 42 Ohio St.3d 131, 538 N.E.2d 93 (Ohio 1989) (discovery rule: cognizable event triggers accrual)
Flowers v. Walker, 63 Ohio St.3d 546, 589 N.E.2d 1284 (Ohio 1992) (patient need not know full extent of injury for accrual)
Hershberger v. Akron City Hosp., 34 Ohio St.3d 1, 516 N.E.2d 204 (Ohio 1987) (definition of cognizable event under discovery rule)
Akers v. Alonzo, 65 Ohio St.3d 422, 605 N.E.2d 1 (Ohio 1992) (accrual when discovery or termination of physician-patient relationship, whichever later)
Millbaugh v. Gilmore, 30 Ohio St.2d 319, 285 N.E.2d 19 (Ohio 1972) (termination when patient refuses further treatment or parties take affirmative steps)
Wells v. Johenning, 63 Ohio App.3d 364, 578 N.E.2d 878 (Ohio App. 1989) (termination analysis for physician-patient relationship)
Evans v. S. Ohio Med. Ctr., 103 Ohio App.3d 250, 659 N.E.2d 326 (Ohio App. 1995) (assessing when discovery rule creates genuine factual dispute)