Client Alerts, News Articles & Blog Posts

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

Ohio Supreme Court Clarifies Medical Statute of Limitations

This article was originally published in the Stark County Medical Society newsletter.

The Ohio Supreme Court issued a decision in late December that clarifies and finalizes the Ohio law regarding the period of time in which patients can assert claims for medical malpractice. The Court was examining the interplay between three different statutes being the statute of limitations, the statute of repose, and the savings statute.

Most practitioners are familiar with the statute of limitations. The statute of limitations is a specific statute that limits the time period in which a lawsuit can be filed which starts when the injury occurred or is discovered. In essence, it provides a limited period of time in which a claim can be filed, and if not filed in that period, denies the Claimant a chance to even assert a claim as if an event had occurred. In Ohio, the statute of limitations for a medical malpractice action is a one-year period which begins at the later of the termination of the patient-physician relationship or the patient discovers or should have discovered that an injury had occurred.

The second statute is the statute of repose.  Unlike the statute of limitations, which limits the time period in which to assert the claim, the statute of repose is focused on when the physician is relieved of any potential exposure for any conduct that arose prior to the cutoff date. In Ohio, the statute of repose for medical claims is four years. In other words, the claim must be filed within four years after the occurrence or omission of conduct which the Plaintiff claims was wrongful has actually occurred. The difference between the two is the statute of repose is a hard cutoff of claims as opposed to the statute of limitations which is triggered by discovery of the mistake.

The third statute is what is known as the savings statute. Under the savings statute, if a party timely files a claim for example, but that same lawsuit is later dismissed by the Plaintiff other than on the merits, the savings statute permits that Plaintiff refiling the lawsuit within one year effectively treating the renewed lawsuit as having been filed within the initial year even if the date of the refiling is after the end of the one year or four years. 

The issue before the Supreme Court was whether or not a party who had filed a claim within the four-year statute of repose could dismiss and refile the action within a year after the end of the four years, effectively making it a fifth year asserting the savings statute would apply.  

After carefully reviewing the history of prior court decisions and more importantly reviewing other provisions in Ohio law, the Ohio Supreme Court concluded that the statutes are clear that if a claim is not commenced and pursued within the four-year statute of repose, the claim is barred. The Court specifically found that the savings statute would not apply, and a Plaintiff could not file, dismiss and refile the claim. The Court also noted however that even within that interpretation there still remains two specific exemptions that may extend the time for filing. The first exception is if the injured party was a minor where the time periods begin when the minor turns 18, or second, if the patient should happen to be of “unsound mind” as the statute defines which would make that patient not able legally to make a determination for themselves if a claim existed or should have existed. 

The Court pointed out that the reason for the statute of repose was to give medical providers certainty with respect to the time in which a claim can be brought against them and a time after which they would be free from the fear of litigation. Based upon that underlying purpose, the Court concluded that the savings statute does not give the Plaintiff an additional year to refile a case. The Supreme Court further noted that there were other provisions in Ohio law where the state legislature had in fact been clear that the savings statute would be available to a party for the refiling of a claim. For example, other statutory provisions dealing with product liability claims specifically authorized the invocation of the savings statute whereas the claims for medical malpractice do not. The Court concluded that the savings statute does not extend for another year the time period in which a claim can be filed thereby putting a cap at a maximum of four years. The Court goes on to note that even though arguments had been asserted that public policy should permit an extension, the Court concluded that that is a matter to be addressed specifically by the legislature and that the Court itself would not create a new rule or rewrite the law period.

If you have any questions or would like to receive a copy of the Court’s Decision, please contact me, Scott P. Sandrock, at spsandrock@bmdllc.com or (330) 253-4367.

COVID, Privacy and More! New Challenges for Physicians in 2021

While hopefully we are coming out of the pandemic, the legal repercussions related to legislative initiatives and other actions during that time continue to apply to businesses in general and healthcare practices. It is a helpful reminder that practices make certain that they maintain accurate records in order to satisfy the reporting requirements under the various COVID-related bills and protect yourself from future employment claims.

Banking and Cannabis: Bank Lending, The Next Frontier

A fortuitous combination of developments and circumstances present the banking and cannabis industries a large opportunity to enhance each of their respective bottom lines: conventional bank lending, payment processing, treasury management and other services, and bank administered SBA and revenue bond financing to cannabis businesses.

EKRA Updates: COVID-19 Testing, Employment Agreements, and More

Ever since the Eliminating Kickbacks in Recovery Act (“EKRA”) was passed by Congress in 2018, we have been waiting to see how the law is interpreted and ultimately enforced. As a reminder, EKRA seeks to eliminate kickbacks in return for patient referrals to facilities that treat those overcoming addiction, such as recovery homes, clinical treatment centers, and laboratories. (NOTE: EKRA applies to all laboratories, not just those related to addiction treatment.) It is essentially an expansion of the Anti-Kickback Statute, which only applies to those services that are reimbursable through federal healthcare programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, to now also cover services reimbursable through private insurers.

New Interpretation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Rocks the Industry

It’s not lost on us that our interpretation of § 1692c(b) runs the risk of upsetting the status quo in the debt-collection industry. This quote from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal in its April 21, 2021 opinion from the case of Hunstein v. Preferred Collection and Management Services, Inc. is possibly the biggest understatement in the history of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. At a minimum, the Eleventh Circuit’s opinion has sent shockwaves and fear throughout multiple sectors of the financial services industry.

Construction Industry Trends and Predictions Through 2021 and Beyond: Insurance and Emerging Threats

A 2021 survey identified three key issues impacting the construction industry in 2021: (1) the financial health of contractors; (2) the continuing risk of the pandemic; and (3) technology driving productivity, but also increasing the risk of cybersecurity threats. With this backdrop, insurance premiums in the construction industry are generally on the rise in 2021.