Wiltz v. Cleveland Clinic
2021 Ohio 62
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Plaintiff Cassandra Wiltz (pro se) alleged multiple healthcare providers failed to diagnose/treat cancer and paraneoplastic syndrome, causing permanent injuries. She sent 180‑day notices on Sept. 24–25, 2018 and filed suit on Mar. 22, 2019.
- Cleveland Clinic defendants were dismissed on May 16, 2019 for failure to file the affidavit of merit required by Civ.R. 10(D). Wiltz’s Civ.R. 60(B) motion to vacate that dismissal was denied.
- OhioHealth and Ohio Gastro defendants were dismissed in June–July 2019 on statute‑of‑limitations grounds (claims characterized as medical malpractice subject to a one‑year limitations period, extendable 180 days by notice).
- Wiltz sought leave to amend; the trial court denied amendment as untimely and as relating primarily to already‑dismissed defendants. She also challenged docketing dates and alleged failure of service of motions.
- The court concluded the cognizable event occurred in August 2017 (when doctors suggested possible cancer/paraneoplastic syndrome), making Wiltz’s 180‑day notices and complaint untimely; all assignments of error were overruled and the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Accrual/statute of limitations for medical malpractice | Wiltz argued she did not know (and had no reason to know) of cancer until Sept. 25, 2017, so claims and 180‑day notices were timely. | Defendants argued cognizable event occurred earlier (Aug. 2017), so the one‑year limitations plus 180‑day toll expired before notice/complaint. | Court held Aug. 2017 was a cognizable event; limitations expired Aug. 31, 2018; Wiltz’s notices/complaint were untimely. |
| Denial of leave to amend (Civ.R. 15) / relation to statute of limitations | Wiltz contended amendment would show she lacked knowledge until Sept. 2017 and would save claims from time‑bar. | Defendants/ court: proposed amendments largely repeated existing allegations and did not change accrual analysis; leave properly denied as futile/untimely. | Court affirmed denial of leave to amend because amendments would not overcome statute‑of‑limitations bar. |
| Dismissal for failure to file affidavit of merit (Civ.R. 10(D)) and Civ.R. 60(B) relief | Wiltz argued dismissal improper and that she was entitled to relief from judgment (claimed nonservice of motion; no opportunity to oppose). | Cleveland Clinic maintained dismissal was correct for lack of affidavit of merit; certificate of service created presumption of service; no meritorious defense shown on 60(B). | Court held dismissal for failure to attach affidavit of merit was proper; Wiltz failed GTE factors for Civ.R. 60(B) relief (no meritorious defense; no excusable neglect shown). |
| Service and due process / clerk docketing complaints | Wiltz asserted she was not served with motions and that clerk mishandled mailed filings, denying due process and discriminating as a pro se litigant. | Defendants pointed to certificates of service and compliance with Civ.R. 5; clerk records showed many filings by Wiltz were timely docketed. | Court found presumption of service unrebutted, no due‑process violation, and no abuse concerning clerk’s docketing; assignments of error rejected. |
Key Cases Cited
- Oliver v. Kaiser Community Health Fund, 5 Ohio St.3d 111 (Ohio 1983) (medical malpractice accrual: claim accrues when patient discovers, or with reasonable diligence should discover, injury).
- Hershberger v. Akron City Hosp., 34 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio 1987) (factors for accrual: awareness of extent/seriousness, relation to prior treatment, notice to pursue remedies).
- Allenius v. Thomas, 42 Ohio St.3d 131 (Ohio 1989) (concept of a cognizable event triggering accrual and the need for further inquiry).
- Edens v. Barberton Area Family Practice Ctr., 43 Ohio St.3d 176 (Ohio 1989) (180‑day notice period runs from receipt of notice, not mailing date).
- Bruni v. Tatsumi, 46 Ohio St.2d 127 (Ohio 1976) (failure to diagnose actionable as medical malpractice).
- Fletcher v. Univ. Hospitals of Cleveland, 120 Ohio St.3d 167 (Ohio 2008) (failure to attach required affidavit of merit supports dismissal under Civ.R. 10(D)).
- GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC Indus., Inc., 47 Ohio St.2d 146 (Ohio 1976) (requirements for Civ.R. 60(B) relief: meritorious defense, entitlement to relief, reasonable time).
- Zanesville v. Rouse, 126 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio 2010) (filing occurs when document is deposited with clerk; clerk’s time stamp certifies filing).