Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

Ohio Supreme Court Clarifies Medical Statute of Limitations

Client Alert
February 1, 2021

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.

Scott P. SandrockHealth LawBMD Healthcare & Hospital LawStatutes of LimitationsOhio Supreme Court
Client Alert

Ohio’s Managed Care Overhaul Delayed – New Implementation Timeline

May 4, 2022At the direction of Governor Mike DeWine, the Ohio Department of Medicaid (ODM) launched the Medicaid Managed Care Procurement process in 2019. ODM’s stated vision for the procurement was to focus on people and not just the business of managed care. This is the first structural change to Ohio’s managed care system since the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' (CMS) approval of Ohio’s Medicaid program in 2005. Initially, all of the new managed care programs were supposed to be implemented starting on July 1, 2022. However, ODM Director Maureen Corcoran recently confirmed that this date will be pushed back for several managed care-related programs.Client Alert

Laboratory Specimen Collection Arrangements with Contract Hospitals - OIG Advisory Opinion 22-09

May 3, 2022On April 28, 2022, the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) published an Advisory Opinion[1] in which it evaluated a proposed arrangement where a network of clinical laboratories (the “Requestor”) would compensate hospitals (each a “Contract Hospital”) for specimen collection, processing, and handling services (“Collection Services”) for laboratory tests furnished by the Requestor (the “Proposed Arrangement”). The OIG concluded that the Proposed Arrangement would generate prohibited remuneration under the federal Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”) if the requisite intent were present. This is due to both the possibility that the proposed per-patient-encounter fee would be used to induce or reward referrals to Requestor and the associated risk of improperly steering patients to Requestor.Client Alert

Property Owner Protection from Tax Valuation Challenges

April 29, 2022New legislation provides significant new protections for commercial property owners against challenges to valuation primarily by local school boards and prohibiting side agreements to avoid tax valuation changes. The Ohio Legislature has approved House Bill 126 which will go into effect July 2022 but will effectively apply to the 2023 tax valuation year.Client Alert

No Surprises Act Update: The IDR Portal is Open

April 25, 2022The No Surprises Act (“NSA”) became effective January 1, 2022, and has been the subject of lawsuits and criticisms since its inception. The goals of the No Surprises Act are to shield patients from surprise medical bills, provide to uninsured and self-pay patients good faith estimates of charges, and create a process to resolve payment disputes over surprise bills, which arise most typically in emergency care settings. We have written about Part I and Part II of the NSA previously. This update concerns the Independent Dispute Resolution (“IDR”) procedure created by Part II but applicable to claims covered by Part I. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) finally opened the Portal for providers to submit disputes to the IDR process following some updated guidance regarding the arbitration process itself.Client Alert

Updated FAQs for the No Surprises Act - Good Faith Estimates

April 7, 2022The No Surprises Act (“NSA”) became effective January 1, 2022. Meant to protect consumers from surprise medical bills, the new law is good for consumers, but vexatious for health care providers and facilities. One particular source of frustration is the operationalization of the Good Faith Estimate (“GFE”) requirement, governed by Part II of the regulations that implement the NSA. The GFE requirements apply broadly to all healthcare providers and facilities that practice within the scope of their state-issued license.
Older posts
Newer posts